1

Envisioning Graduate Education

University of Kentucky

Blue-Ribbon Panel on Graduate Education

February 12, 2018

Carl Mattacola, College of Health Sciences (Committee Chair)

Brett Spear^, College of Medicine (Committee Chair)

Jenny Evans*,#, College of Education (Executive Coordinator)

Growth and Innovation Subcommittee

Gregory Luhan^, College of Design (Co-chair)

Terry Lennie, College of Nursing (Co-chair)

Donna Arnett^, College of Public Health

Kip Guy^, College of Pharmacy

Sarah Lyon, College of Arts & Sciences

Kai Zhang*,#,^, College of Medicine

Infrastructure and Funding Subcommittee

Mark Lauersdorf^, College of Arts & Sciences (Co-chair)

Mark Coyne, College of Agriculture, Food & Environment (Co-chair)

Zach Hilt, College of Engineering

Rachel Shane, College of Fine Arts

Valerie Stevens*,#, College of Arts & Sciences

Ann Vail^, College of Social Work

Graduate Student Experience Subcommittee

Kaylynne Glover*, College of Arts & Sciences (Co-chair)

David Puleo, College of Engineering (Co-chair)

Suraj Chaudhary*,#,^, College of Arts & Sciences

Mark Kornbluh^, College of Arts & Sciences

Donna Kwon, College of Fine Arts

Beth Rous, College of Education

Analytics and Evaluation Subcommittee

Katie Cardarelli, College of Public Health (Co-chair)

Jenny Minier, Gatton College of Business & Economics (Co-chair)

Beth Barnes, College of Communication and Information

David Brennen^ (Ex-Officio), College of Law

Gabriela Jiskrova*, College of Agriculture, Food & Environment

*Student Members

^Member, University Senate

#Not an original appointee

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3

The Committee’s Charge and Overall Recommendations 5

Current State of Graduate Education 9

Appendices

10

11

22

42

49

60

65

84

85

Current State of Graduate Education References (1)

The Process (2.1 – 2.12)

Growth and Innovation (3.1)

Infrastructure and Funding (3.2)

Graduate Student Experience (3.3)

Analytics and Evaluation (3.4)

Survey Questions (4.1)

Stamats Report Link (4.2)

Graduate School Structure, Staffing, and Functions (4.3)

Charge to the Blue-Ribbon Panel on Graduate Education (4.4) 95

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

One of five objectives of the 2015-2020 University of Kentucky Strategic Plan is to “strengthen the quality and

distinctiveness of our graduate programs to transform our students into accomplished scholars and professionals

who contribute to the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world through their research and discovery, creative

endeavors, teaching, and service.” Steps to achieve this objective include the recruitment and retention of

graduate students of all backgrounds, strategic investment in graduate programs, and elevation of the quality

and richness of the graduate student experience. An undertaking of this magnitude requires a coordinated and

multifaceted approach and a commitment to providing the best possible environment and experience to foster

the success of our graduate students. It is understood that the success of the research enterprise and

undergraduate teaching mission of our institution is dependent on a passionate, highly skilled, well-trained,

empowered, and genuinely valued graduate student population. Furthermore, forces within and outside

academia are driving significant changes in graduate education, and the scope of professional opportunities for

graduate students is changing in fundamental ways. Those institutions positioned to respond rapidly to the

changing landscape are most likely to flourish in the coming decades.

In early 2017, the Provost and University Senate charged a Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) on Graduate Education,

comprised of faculty, deans, and graduate students, with the task of “envisioning the graduate student

experience and developing a rigorous intellectual vision for the University of Kentucky’s graduate education

mission for the next 10-15 years.” Panel recommendations are expected to strengthen the quality and

distinctiveness of our graduate programs, rethink graduate education in order to elevate our intellectual

aspirations as a leading research university, establish a philosophical framework for graduate education that

reflects the demands and realities of the 21st century and best prepare our graduate students for a diverse range

of career opportunities in an ever-changing and often unpredictable global economy. Implementation of these

recommendations and strategies for success will be impacted significantly by the role and structure of the

Graduate School, which was also considered by the BRP.

With an overarching objective of maximizing the graduate student experience, the BRP identified the following

strategic priorities through meetings with stakeholders across campus, a comprehensive survey of faculty and

graduate students, evaluation of efforts at benchmark institutions, and analysis of graduate school trends across

the country.

1. Strengthen resources for graduate student academic scholarship, transferable skills, and non-academic

support.

Expand resources and opportunities for students to develop transferable skills to prepare them for a diverse

range of career opportunities. Establish greater transparency regarding student funding, including scholarships

and assistantships. Improve mentoring resources and foster increased international opportunities. Establish

compensation guidelines that are in line with benchmark institutions to include an improved support structure

for students, including housing, child care, and family leave. Consider needs of those who are off-

campus/distance graduate students. Restructure guidelines to expand educational opportunities such as enabling

post-qualifying students to take classes.

2. Stabilize and strengthen the proposed College of Graduate Studies so it is positioned to facilitate

change and support initiatives from faculty, programs, and colleges.

Restructure the Graduate School to a proposed College of Graduate Studies. Recruit a visionary, full-time, and

permanent Dean and provide resources to ensure the success of existing programs and new initiatives,

particularly in partnership with Colleges and the Office of the Vice President for Research. Develop incentives

and decrease barriers to innovative initiatives, including interdisciplinary programs and non-traditional methods

to transfer knowledge. Evaluate the functionality of the existing Gillis Building and consider the possibility of a

new Graduate Center building.

4

3. Ensure the infrastructure maximizes use of limited resources.

Increase the proposed College of Graduate Studies staff strategically. Recruit the best possible students via

cooperation between the proposed College of Graduate Studies, Colleges, and Graduate Programs. Pursue new

and innovative revenue-generating opportunities, including increased philanthropy for graduate education.

Enhance interactions between the Vice President for Research and the proposed College of Graduate Studies to

maximize research resources for student success.

4. Clearly define the roles and resources of the proposed College of Graduate Studies and those of

individual colleges/programs.

Better utilize stakeholders, including Graduate Council, Senate Research and Graduate Education Committee,

and Directors of Graduate Studies (DGSs), to maximize the effectiveness of the proposed College of Graduate

Studies and to ensure the proper balance between centralized and non-centralized activities. Improve

communication to ensure the proposed College of Graduate Studies works closely with Colleges and Programs

to better disseminate opportunities and shared resources.

5. Ensure university regulations provide sufficient flexibility to promote interdisciplinary studies and new

initiatives.

Develop new curricular initiatives and interdisciplinary studies programs with support from the top level of the

university including an incentive program for faculty and programs creating and participating in exploratory and

interdisciplinary studies. Promote opportunities for growth, such as the development of new programs (PhD,

MS, and MA), graduate certificates, online courses, and nano-degrees, to reach a broader and more diverse

spectrum of students, both local and remote. Expand the definition of scholarship and research to confront and

solve real-world problems through an interface with employers in Kentucky and throughout the world.

Stimulate nimbleness by evaluating/modifying university regulations/procedures to ensure rapid responses to

emerging market needs within the Commonwealth and beyond. Improve accountability and reward success in

all areas within an environment and culture that seeks and supports bottom-up initiatives.

6. Improve data collection/analysis to inform decisions and priorities.

Strengthen analytics to support the effective use of data and identification of areas of strengths, weaknesses, and

opportunities for responsible growth. Improved data collection and analysis, along with clearly defined,

appropriate, and ambitious metrics, should be used to evaluate program quality and accountability, and drive

both resource allocation and incentives with the understanding that best practices are often discipline-specific.

The continued competitiveness of the United States in an increasingly global and knowledge-based environment

will depend on a robust system of graduate education. However, we find ourselves in a time of dramatic change.

Resources and funding are more limited than in the past. An increasing number of graduate degree recipients

work outside academia, and this trend is expected to increase. Institutions must embrace this reality and provide

the innovative training and interdisciplinary experiences that will ensure a student’s success in the areas of

business, government, and non-profits as well as academia in the future. Future strategies must be responsive to

external forces and grounded in data that is both transparent and robust. With a recent focus on undergraduate

success and financial initiatives at UK, the graduate student experience has often been overlooked. The

Graduate School has had a reduction in staffing and an interim dean since 2014, hampering its ability to develop

a consistent strategic vision. As Kentucky’s flagship institution and one of the nation’s 115 designated Carnegie

R1 (High Research Activity) Universities, it is critical the University of Kentucky address the current

challenges in graduate education through the strategic priorities recommended by this committee.

5

THE COMMITTEE’S CHARGE AND OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2015-2020 University of Kentucky Strategic Plan calls for the university to “strengthen the quality and

distinctiveness of our graduate programs to transform our students into accomplished scholars and professionals

who contribute to the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world through their research and discovery, creative

endeavors, teaching, and service.” Our ability to rethink graduate education and provide an innovative and

multi-faceted teaching and research community will elevate our intellectual aspirations as a leading university.

The first part of this task, envisioning the graduate student experience, challenged the committee to develop a

philosophical framework for graduate education that reflects the demands and realities of the 21st century. The

committee determined how UK can best prepare its graduate students for a diverse range of career opportunities

and to become leaders in an ever-changing and often unpredictable global economy. The Provost emphasized

the importance of innovative, outside-the-box thinking without considering the cost of implementation. Part of

fostering the graduate student experience required the committee to contemplate the proper balance for graduate

students: their responsibilities in the classroom, their professional development, their interaction with faculty,

and their research. It also required a set of recommendations on the concrete initiatives, support systems, and

culture shifts necessary – both centrally and in the colleges – to promote graduate student success.

As the committee addressed and envisioned the student experience for graduate education, it also contemplated

and developed a rigorous intellectual vision for graduate education. Doing so required the committee to

recommend criteria for assessing the effectiveness, impact, and viability of graduate programs, as well as

rigorous, holistic, and faculty-led processes for establishing new programs.

Finally, questions about the structure of the Graduate School, specifically, and graduate education, generally,

were driven by strategies and recommendations developed by the Blue Ribbon Panel’s work. By identifying

strategies for success, we can build the most effective structure for carrying out the agenda. The strategy, too,

helps address many of the concerns identified in the past, including: administrative structure, stipends, student

support services, and infrastructure.

An assembled committee of faculty, staff, and students worked throughout 2017, with the support of the Office

of the Provost and the University Senate, to deliver initial considerations/recommendations in early 2018. As

part of this process, the committee was provided with the requisite campus and industry-level data, as well as

feedback gathered from the University Senate, deans, the Graduate School, and academic leadership of UK’s

colleges. During the fall 2017 and spring 2018 semesters, the report was circulated for input and comments

from the campus community. The final report and recommendations will be submitted to the Provost and Senate

Council Chair in Spring 2018. The expectation is for colleges, necessary campus entities, and deliberative

bodies to begin implementation in Fall 2018.

The Committee identified four themes to further define its focus: Growth and Innovation, Infrastructure and

Funding, the Graduate Student Experience, and Analytics and Evaluation. To address these effectively,

members of the BRP were divided into four subcommittees comprised of five to six members with two co-

chairs (sub-committee members are listed in Appendices 3.1-3.4). Sub-committees met regularly, with BRP

Chairs Brett Spear or Carl Mattacola often in attendance. Sub-committee co-chairs met bi-weekly with Carl

Mattacola, Brett Spear, and Jenny Evans to ensure clear and regular communication between sub-committees.

These four themes provided a framework for the overall recommendations and sections of this report.

Below is a summary of how the committee responded to the original charge. The original and unaltered

committee reports can be found in Appendices 3.1-3.4.

6

Envisioning the Graduate Student Experience

Enhance growth and innovation

• Promote interdisciplinary innovation in response to market needs

• Enable a robust student experience

• Increase the number of high-quality graduates

• Increase the total number of students (PhD, Masters)

• Improve recruitment activities and initiatives to bring UK students to the world and the world to UK

Improve the graduate student experience

• Provide comprehensive support

• Equitable funding

• Access to interdisciplinary opportunities

• Scholarships/fellowships

• Physical and organizational infrastructure

Improve the quality of life for all graduate students

• Comprehensive support including affordable housing, healthcare, and human resources benefits such as

childcare, disability, and mental health availability

• Adequate stipend compensation, consistent tuition scholarship, increased fellowships, and merit

scholarships

• Access to improved professional development

• Support for interdisciplinary initiatives and employment driven mentoring

• Dedicated space for graduate student activities

• Endow the Graduate Student Congress with financial autonomy through access to student fees and

legislative autonomy through proportional representation on University councils, senates, and boards

Enhance Innovation

Enhance growth and innovation

• Increase entrepreneurship within the proposed College of Graduate Studies and individual colleges and

programs

• Create student-centric personalized education plans

• Increase our reach via online educational opportunities

• Development of market-responsive and market-leading programs that are distinctive and innovative in

terms of program delivery of content

• Articulation and promotion of the role of graduate education on campus, in industry, and across the state

• Increase opportunities for student innovation, service learning, and other modalities to prepare students

to be future leaders via an interdisciplinary focus that is linked to real-world situations, collaboration,

team-based approaches, resources, faculty, and topics

Analysis of resources available and not currently available

• Thoughtful analysis of and resources to equilibrate comprehensive support, funding, and

scholarship/fellowship needs

• Dedicated space to establish a proposed Graduate Student Center

• Improve all research facilities directly aligned with graduate research and scholarship

7

• Creation of the proposed College of Graduate Studies with an emphasis on fostering cross-campus

collaborative innovation and interdisciplinary opportunities/collaboration to encourage, rather than

discourage, exploration and interdisciplinarity and better prepare the future generation of students

Assessment and Evaluation of the Effectiveness, Impact, and Viability of Graduate Programs

Streamline analytics and evaluation

• Bolster graduate education analytics and program evaluation capacity across campus

• Deploy strategic and organized data collection that is integrated between the proposed College of

Graduate Studies, Institutional Research and Analytics, and Colleges to provide institutional metrics on

academic progress to establish baselines and for future strategic planning and graduate student

recruitment

• Coordinate analytic capacity for the monitoring, growth, and evaluation of graduate education across the

breadth and variety of graduate programs at UK

• Capture graduate student employment data post-graduation

• Ensure sufficient dedicated Analytics and Evaluation positions to create, analyze and collect graduate-

centric metrics to a level that is comparable to that which has been dedicated to undergraduate education

Intellectual Vision for Graduate Education and the Graduate School

Establish a College of Graduate Studies and Graduate Student Center

• Create a centralized and independent College of Graduate Studies, led by a visionary, full-time, and

permanent Dean who seeks to create multidisciplinary opportunities via new resources and fosters

opportunities within existing entities on campus to develop a culture of cross-campus collaboration

• A nomenclature shift and reorganization of the reporting structure of the proposed College of Graduate

Studies

• Construct or repurpose one or more existing physical structures as a Graduate Center to house the

proposed College of Graduate Studies in its entirety

• Create an instructional and research environment that can work nimbly and innovatively to meet the

needs of a diverse domestic and international student body in a changing global context

• Create capacity and mechanisms to fund graduate education at a level and functionality that allows for

growth in areas of existing strength and encourages innovative development of new areas of excellence

Physical infrastructure needed

• Place the proposed Graduate Center in a prominent campus location to provide a visible locus for all

aspects of graduate education, including the proposed College of Graduate Studies administration and

the Graduate Student Congress

• Resources for infrastructure to support enhanced online course delivery

• Provide ample meeting and workspaces for both physical and virtual gatherings

• Dedicated graduate-student career services and graduate-student community services, including

dedicated services for off-campus/distance graduate students and international graduate students

Organizational infrastructure needed

• Hire a full-time, permanent Dean of the proposed College of Graduate Studies whose position is

commensurate with other college deans

• Build faculty governance structures to support the Dean, similar to structures in other colleges

8

• Staff the proposed College of Graduate Studies adequately to perform its core administrative functions

and the proposed enhanced programming

• Create a new position to support the Office of Diversity and recruitment programs

• Make the proposed College of Graduate Studies the lead unit for promotion and coordination of

exploratory and interdisciplinary graduate-level activities

• Create official points of collaboration and partnership between the proposed College of Graduate

Studies, the Office of the Provost, and the Office of the Vice President for Research

Strategies and Recommendations for Success

Create capacity and mechanisms to fund graduate education

• Create greater transparency regarding the funding sources for graduate education, the mechanisms and

parameters for allocation and distribution of the financial resources for graduate education, and utilize a

budgetary model that incentivizes cross-campus collaboration and resource sharing

• Fund the proposed College of Graduate Studies with hard dollars commensurate with the enhanced

programming required to perform its expanded roles

• Fund full-time permanent positions in all key areas of the proposed College of Graduate Studies

• Encourage philanthropic efforts that will enable it to develop endowed funds for initiatives in graduate

education and research

Equitable allocations needed

• Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A) from research proposals, graduate student tuition, local, state,

and federal student support to enhance the mission of the proposed College of Graduate Studies

• Engaged fundraising and increased alumni relations by the proposed College of Graduate Studies Dean

to identify donors for named buildings and scholarships

• Enhanced staffing for online instruction support and increased IT infrastructure for online delivery at the

University level

• Investment in the redesign of the proposed College of Graduate Studies website

• Ensure sufficient staffing at the University and College levels to increase financial transparency

• Fair and consistent fraction of tuition dollars commensurate with the allocation currently used for

undergraduate tuition dollars explicitly designated for graduate student support

9

CURRENT STATE OF GRADUATE EDUCATION

Graduate education must be considered one of the great success stories of the United States education system

since World War II. This success has been fueled by government investment and the acknowledgment that

economic, societal, and scientific advances depend on robust graduate education to train future leaders in these

areas. Cornerstones of graduate education have included world-renowned faculty, state-of-the-art research

facilities, libraries, and laboratories that provide graduate students with opportunities to make significant

discoveries and stimulate their intellectual development.[1] It is therefore not surprising that a vast majority of

PhDs, worldwide, have come from the United States during this time and many of these graduates have become

international leaders in academia, business, and politics.[1] The continued competitiveness of the United States

in an increasingly global and knowledge-based environment will depend on a robust system of graduate

education.

The importance of graduate education is no less today than in past decades. However, we now find ourselves at

a time of great opportunities and challenges – often these are one and the same – that are expected to

dramatically change the landscape of graduate education. Rapidly changing technology has and will continue to

revolutionize the way information is conveyed to students, including those that are on-site and through distance

learning. The demographics of graduate students is changing. Many incoming graduate students are older and

have work experience and/or families. Diversity of the student population, including underrepresented

minorities, gender, and international students, is becoming increasingly important. Improved retention,

minimizing student debt, and reducing time-to-degree (or, perhaps more importantly, time-to-employment) are

perceived by prospective students and University administrators as critical factors.[1-4] Prospective students are

becoming increasingly interested in career opportunities and market forces, including those that are regional and

national, when considering graduate school options.

Many factors shaping graduate education come from outside academia, including political, societal and

economic factors.[5] Graduate programs must be nimble to respond appropriately and rapidly to these external

pressures. An increasing number of graduate degree recipients work outside of academia, and this trend is

expected to increase. Institutions must embrace this reality and provide the training and interdisciplinary

experiences that will ensure a student’s success in the areas of business, government and non-profits as well as

academia.[2, 6] Occupations that require some level of graduate education will continue to grow, but this

growth will be in certain areas.[6, 7] Over half of new jobs projected over the next decade will be in

professional and service occupations.[1] There is an increasing interest in and appreciation for career

preparation, which, in addition to developing expertise in a particular area, includes well-developed transferable

skills such as professionalism, work ethic, time management, communication, teamwork, problem-solving, and

critical thinking.[8-12]

While past decisions regarding graduate education were often based on intuition and faculty/institution interests,

future strategies must be responsive to external forces and grounded in data that is both transparent and

robust.[13] Stakeholders will increasingly require data to determine whether investments in graduate education

are producing the desired outcomes. Institutions that effectively capture and utilize data will most effectively

recruit, retain and train students and evaluate postgraduate success. Such data will inform institutional decisions

regarding the addition, growth, modification, or sunsetting of academic programs.[2-4]

As Kentucky’s flagship institution and one of the nation’s 115 designated Carnegie R1 (High Research

Activity) Universities, the challenges in graduate education outlined above are of great importance to the

University of Kentucky. These challenges played a prominent role in the work of the Blue Ribbon Panel on

Graduate Education.

10

APPENDIX 1

CURRENT STATE OF GRADUATE EDUCATION REFERENCES

1. The Path Forward: The Future of Graduate Education in the United States. Report from the

Commission on the Future of Graduate Education in the United States. 2010: Council of Graduate

Schools and Educational Testing Service p. 1-71.

2. Compensation and Benefits Packages for Graduate Assistants at Public Universities. 2012: Education

Advisory Board. p. 1-14.

3. Cost Drivers of Graduate Education. 2013: Education Advisory Board p. 1-10.

4. Promoting Timely Degree Completion. Reconciling Student Choice and the Four-Year Graduation

Imperative. 2016: EAB.

5. Fitzgerald, H., et al., The Centrality of Engagement in Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education

Outrach and Engagement, 2012. 16(3): p. 7-28.

6. The Futue of Work: How Colleges can Prepare Students for the Job Ahead. 2017: The Chronicle of

Higher Eduation p. 1-45.

7. The Challenge of Change. 2017: Inside Higher Ed p. 1-36.

8. 2016 Business Round Table Education and Workforce Survey. 2017: Business Roundtable p. 1-20.

9. The Future of Jobs. Employment, Skills and Workforce Strategy for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

2016: World Economic Forum p. 1-167.

10. Selingo, J., The Future of Work / Part One: Automation and a GIG Economy. 2015: The Harvard

Business Review p. 1-11.

11. Selingo, J., The Future of Work Part Two: Meeting the Demands of the Workforce. 2016: The Chronicle

of Higher Education p. 1-10.

12. Allum, J., J. Kent, and M. MT, Understanding PhD Career Pathways for Program Improvement, in

Council of Graduate Schools. 2104. p. 1-49.

13. New Challenges in Graduate and Professional Education. 2017: Inside Higher Education p. 1-36.

11

APPENDIX 2.1 – 2.12

THE PROCESS

Figure 1. Blue Ribbon Panel Committee Timeline.

A survey was developed for input from graduate faculty and graduate students to gain insight about a variety of

graduate education issues (2.1). Following the results of the survey, the Blue Ribbon Panel hosted multiple open

forums (2.2 and 2.5), met with University Senate (2.3), other faculty groups (2.7), and worked with the

Graduate School (2.4) and Analytics (2.8) faculty and staff to communicate the committee’s efforts throughout

2017. A website and blog was also developed through the Office of the Provost to communicate the panel's

work and share updated progress information (2.11).

BRP co-chairs Brett Spear and Carl Mattacola met monthly with Provost Tim Tracy (2.10). They also met with

the subcommittee chairs and co-chairs monthly (May – August 2017) and then bi-weekly beginning August 28,

2017 (2.9).

The need to offer interdisciplinary studies was a common theme discussed in the open forums and meetings. A

benchmark analysis study was conducted to determine how other institutions in the United States structure

interdisciplinary studies and programs (2.12). In addition, Carl Mattacola met with representatives at Duke

University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to gain a different understanding of interdisciplinary

studies and graduate education (2.6).

Detailed information on all parts of the process and data, if applicable, is available in the respective appendices.

12

2.1 University of Kentucky Survey of Graduate Faculty and Graduate Students

(April 17 – May 1)

A survey was developed to gain input from Graduate Faculty and Graduate Students to gain insight about a

variety of Graduate Education issues. There was some discussion about the inclusion of professional students

(e.g., Medical students, Law students), but since this group really does not utilize the resources of the Graduate

School, it was decided to not include these students (it should be noted that faculty in Medicine and Law were

among members of the Blue Ribbon Panel). Stamats provided a skeleton of the survey. Brett Spears and Carl

Mattacola further developed the survey. Input was also provided by members of the Blue Ribbon Panel, Brian

Jackson and others in the Graduate School, as well as the Senate Research and Graduate Education Committee

(meetings on January 19 and February 24, 2017). During this process, Brett Spears and Carl Mattacola had

multiple conversations with Chuck Reed and Grant DeRoo of Stamats for clarification. While a concern was the

length of the survey (anticipated time to complete was between 20-30 minutes), it was felt that it would be

important to capture as much data as possible. The survey was open between April 17 and May 1, 2017; an

initial invitation and two reminders were sent via email. A total of 549 faculty (31.8% response rate) and 649

graduate students (14.7% response rate) completed the survey. Stamats felt that this was an excellent response

rate, particularly for faculty. Stamats compiled the data and provided a summary of the data, as well as all the

raw data, to the Blue Ribbon Panel. Brett Spears and Carl Mattacola had several phone conversations with

Chuck Reed and Grant DeRoo regarding the interpretation of survey results. (Survey questions, Appendix 4.1;

StaMats Report, Appendix 4.2)

2.2 Campus Forums

(April 25, 2017; May 4, 2017; and October 24, 2017 [two])

Several campus forums were held in the Lexmark Room of the Main Building to answer questions related to the

charge of the panel and what the panel had accomplished to date. Forums held on April 25, 2017 and May 4,

2017 were focused on receiving feedback regarding the faculty and student survey that were sent to all graduate

faculty and graduate students. Feedback focused on the purpose of the survey and how the information would

inform the committee moving forward. Attendees expressed concern that the survey focused too broadly on

university services and to a lesser extent on local programs. There was also discussion about the quality of the

questions. Information obtained from the forums helped to inform and define additional committee themes.

These themes included the importance of supporting faculty for their research as a means to retain good faculty;

the importance of competitive compensation for graduate students; the importance of transferable skills; and the

need to consider the professionalism of the graduate student. An indication was also given to the committee,

that the Graduate School at the University of Kentucky should be considered as a cohesive central unit that

provides all of the necessary infrastructure to the range of the University’s graduate students and facilitates

overcoming barriers to their research and education. Current barriers for students and faculty included the

inability for students to enroll in classes post-qualifying examination, difficulty receiving support for mentors to

attend educational experiences outside of the assistantship, and a loss of resources for graduate education due to

the emphasis on undergraduate education. Another suggestion was for the committee to meet with all Directors

of Graduate Studies (DGS) of the university. As a result of this suggestion, meetings were arranged so that all

DGS's could meet with the committee Chairs to provide feedback.

Two Forums were held on October 24, 2017. The committee shared several preliminary areas of focus, which

included: improving analytics capacity, streamlining program evaluations for improvement (including a greater

role for Graduate Council), improving resources for The Graduate School to more effectively impact the

graduate student experience, enhancing nimbleness (decrease barriers) to foster innovation and interdisciplinary

initiatives, and increasing opportunities for professional development and improving student funding (e.g.,

housing, health care) to enhance student quality of life and be more competitive in attracting students. Feedback

from faculty ranged from the confusion of what analytics are and are not, to how accessible this information

was across the university to the importance of providing interdisciplinary initiatives but difficulty in

13

coordination among for students, to the confusion about what resources The Graduate School is responsible for

related to driving analytics and program review.

2.3 University Senate Meetings

(February 13, 2017 and September 11, 2017)

Blue Ribbon Committee co-chairs Brett Spear and Carl Mattacola met on two occasions to brief the University

Senate on the progress of the Blue Ribbon Panel. The first meeting focused on identifying the purpose and

content of the survey that was distributed to all graduate faculty and graduate students. Senators were

encouraged to complete the Survey on Graduate Education. The subsequent meetings focused on providing

updates on a summary of findings from the survey and the primary areas of foci for the committee, which

included the importance of innovations in graduate education, development of new programs, and the

importance of transferrable skills, and funding needs for graduate students. During the September 11, 2017

meeting, a timeline of the committee work since the end of the Spring 2017 semester was presented, including a

series of DGS meetings that included DGS’s from all colleges. A timeline of future events, including

submission of a final report in early 2018, was also presented. Highlights from the Graduate Faculty and

Graduate Student survey were presented, and it was noted that survey results were available online via the Blue

Ribbon Panel website. This was followed by several general comments and questions from the audience.

2.4 Graduate School and Graduate Council meetings

(May 11, 2017; September 19; and September 21, 2017)

Several meetings took place to update Graduate Council and Graduate School leadership on Blue Ribbon Panel

activities. Brett Spear met with Graduate Council to provide updates. During the May meeting, several council

members questioned the value of the survey (this concern stems from similar issues that were raised at one of

the Open Forums) and that the Graduate Council did not have greater input on the survey. No significant

concerns were raised at the September 21 meeting. In addition, Brett Spear and Carl Mattacola met with Brian

Jackson and others in the Graduate School, including Pat Bond, Morris Grubbs, and Kevin Sarge, to share

comments and updates.

The Infrastructure and Funding sub-committee also had a comprehensive meeting with the Graduate School

leadership (September 19, 2017). Discussion focused on the state of the Graduate School, and the sub-

committee solicited a report from the Graduate School regarding current infrastructure, staffing/funding, and

administrative practices/functions and the view of the Graduate School leadership on current best practices at

other institutions. The resulting 12-page document “Graduate School Structure, Staffing and Functions” was

circulated to the BRP chairs and to the full set of sub-committee co-chairs. (Appendix 4.3)

2.5 Directors of Graduate Studies Open Forums

(July 14, 2017; July 21, 2017; September 12, 2017; September 13, 2017; and September 14, 2017)

Throughout the summer and early fall all Directors of Graduate Studies (DGS) were invited to open forums

clustered by college. These five open forums offered DGS’s an opportunity to provide feedback specific to their

college or unit. Each forum began with an overview of the panel's progress and timeline with the remaining

time open for discussion. Several themes arose from these forums covering topics related to interdisciplinary

studies, graduate school structure, reporting/analytics/assessment, graduate student experience, and online

learning.

14

Comments from DGS Open Forums:

Interdisciplinary

• Financial

o Need incentive program for creating and participating in interdisciplinary initiatives

o Money/compensation for participation

o Some principle investigators (PIs) see students as employees under deadline (e.g., mindset alteration

needed)

o Professional versus PhD program tuition cost variation

o Concern about departments/colleges charging others

o Concern of Provost “taxing” programs and taking funding away from the departments

• Structure

o Need support from the top level (from Provost)

o Possible DGS college advisory group

o Distribution of Effort (DOE) needs to reflect interdisciplinary for faculty

• Certificate programs

o Good example of how interdisciplinary is already working at UK

• Students

o Mix of higher and lower levels of knowledge in same classroom can be difficult

Graduate School/Graduate Education

• Lack of institutional support for graduate education

o Tuition scholarships for teaching assistants (TAs) in the summer

o Issue with taking seminars/courses after qualifying exam completion because

funding ends for students

• Envisioning vs re-envisioning

• Need a permanent dean, not an interim dean

• Need additional personnel

o Philanthropy staff

o Bigger analytics staff

• Need help marketing programs and how to attract students

• Need more focus on graduate student recruitment

• Graduate school needs a voice on graduate council

Reporting/Analytics/Assessment

• Need more streamlined systems online to cut down on processing time

• Data systems are very outdated

• Databases are non-existent and hard to get graduate student data

• Graduate assessment should be split from undergraduate assessment

• Need to develop a database to maintain connection to each student post-graduation

• Paperwork goes missing and faculty has to go back to each individual program to resubmit paperwork

Graduate Student Experience

• TA stipends are low and the time TAs spend teaching courses is high compared to other benchmarks

• Stipends are so low, that the College of Arts &Sciences, for example, are losing quality students to other

universities

• Difference in students

o BS to MS/PhD vs 3, 5, 10 years in industry and then MS/PhD

o Some students have different needs in and out of the classroom

o Way to enhance online only graduate students’ experience

15

o Not all programs have full-time PhD students (e.g., College of Education has mostly part-time

students who are full-time professionals)

• Soft skills training should be offered from the graduate school

• Opportunity needed for students to take courses post qualifying exam

Online Learning

• UK is behind on online learning overall

• Graduate school has been more “reactive” to online learning versus being “proactive” (e.g., grad school

has allowed for qualifying exams to be online recently)

• Distance learning issues of in-state versus out-of-state tuition if they try to take one seat in class (could

run into issue with interdisciplinary)

2.6 Benchmark Institution Visits to Duke University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

(September 14, 2017)

Carl Mattacola met with Edward Balleisen, the Vice Provost for Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University;

Steven W. Matson, PhD, the Dean of The Graduate School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,

and Stephanie Schmitt, PhD, the Associate Dean for Academics at UNC, Chapel Hill, to gain a different

understanding of interdisciplinary studies and graduate education.

The Interdisciplinary Studies program at Duke University operates as a separate office with a Vice Provost for

Interdisciplinary Studies (https://sites.duke.edu/interdisciplinary/). Duke University thrives on interdisciplinary

research, education and civic engagement. Many of their programs involve mostly undergraduate students and

graduate students and they hope to build a stronger relationship with doctoral students. They pursue

interdisciplinary work via University Initiatives, Institutes and Centers. There is not a clear distinction between

an institute and a center from an administrative function. They are often used and created differently at the

college or university level.

Duke’s pursuit of excellence in interdisciplinarity has led to an ethos of community-based learning that is

increasingly extended to all scholarly inquiry across the campus. The 2017 academic strategic plan, Together

Duke, strengthens the university’s commitments to fundamental scholarship, a transformative educational

experience for every student and engagement with communities around the world on pressing 21st-century

challenges.

The university-wide Bass Connections program, launched in 2013, brings together Duke faculty, graduate

students and undergraduates to tackle complex societal challenges in interdisciplinary research teams. A

secondary component of the Bass Connections is a summer program where faculty, graduate and undergraduate

students take on a specific challenge research/experimental project that often benefits the community. Via

intense study during a 4 or 6 week summer session the group helps to solve a problem. For example- identifying

way to assist local government with organizing path and travel patterns.

A cornerstone of Duke’s commitment to inquiry across disciplines, university-wide institutes and initiatives

foster problem-focused education, research, and engagement to generate knowledge in the service of society.

Each receives core funding from the Office of the Provost and has its own strategic plan and governance

structure. They are reviewed regularly by the Provost, joined by the Dean of the School of Medicine for those

that are jointly supported, and periodically undergo comprehensive external reviews. In addition to the

university-wide institutes and initiatives, each of Duke’s schools offers a home to interdisciplinary centers that

create collaborative research, innovative courses and opportunities for students and faculty to apply knowledge

in the service of society.

16

Faculty and students can get involved in existing interdisciplinary research projects or begin their own with

funding opportunities. The Office of the Vice Provost for Interdisciplinary Studies manages several competitive

grant programs:

• Bass Connections (projects, course development funds, follow-on student research grants)

• Intellectual Community Planning Grants (ICPG)

• Duke Support for Interdisciplinary Graduate Networks (D-SIGN)

• Graduate Student Training Enhancement Grants (GSTEG)

• Versatile Humanists at Duke (internships, innovation grants; in partnership with The Graduate School and the

Franklin Humanities Institute)

The university-wide institutes and initiatives offer many more. Below are links to selected interdisciplinary

funding opportunities.

• Funding Opportunities for Faculty and Postdocs

• Funding Opportunities for Students

For a more comprehensive search, visit Duke’s research funding database for open interdisciplinary

opportunities and all open opportunities.

The meeting with the Graduate School Deans at the University of North Carolina provided a comparison to a

similarly structured Graduate School as UK. The Graduate School assists with Tuition support and Fellowship

support. Specifically, The Graduate school is responsible for providing the in-state portion of tuition (if the

assistantship comes from state funds). If the monies for the position comes from a grant, The Graduate School

pays the out-of-state portion and the grant would pay the in-state portion.

The Graduate School allocates the number of fellowships to each college based on previous year productivity.

It also fields requests from departments and during the cycle reassesses the total dollars available for

fellowships. The money cannot be rolled-over for the next fiscal year. The Graduate School has created a

minimum stipend for doctoral students ($15,700.) and a minimum for master’s students ($11,400.00). The

Graduate School encourages doctoral students to establish residency to reduce the strain of paying out-of-state

tuition.

Since the 90's a Development Officer was provided to The Graduate School. Development works with colleges

to develop fellowships as well as working to develop fellowships specifically for The Graduate School.

Philosophically any monies that can be generated for a fellowship independently of college participation or in

conjunction with the College development officers is an advancement of resources for graduate students on

campus and considered and tracked as a win.

The Graduate School endowment is 35 million dollars. One highlight for student funding are the Royster

scholarships which provide 5 years of support guaranteed. In addition, they offer 10-12 dissertation

fellowships. There are ~ 350 - 500 k in annual donations that come per year for development funding. There are

several creative mechanisms to provide funding to students. For example, they have used scholarship matching

for summer funding for students in areas like social sciences. The Graduate school will match 2500.00 provided

by an alumnus to provide a total or $5,000 to fund summer projects. Matched donors get to meet the students at

the end of summer and learn about the project;

(http://gradschool.unc.edu/funding/gradschool/summerresearch.html).

They also provide 1 year merit scholarships at ~ 40-100K per year:

(http://gradschool.unc.edu/funding/gradschool/fellowshipsandgrants.html).

The Dean of The Graduate School devotes ~ 20% distribution of effort (DOE) per week for development.

Similarly, the analytics that are provided and accessible via their web page is further advanced than that of UK.

17

In summary, both visits supported the importance of a central and robust graduate school and further

emphasized the possibilities of providing interdisciplinary experiences for students at all levels with a structured

interdisciplinary infrastructure.

2.7 Kalika Report meeting

(September 27, 2017)

Carl Mattacola, Brett Spear, Jenny Evans, and Beth Rous met with Dr. Doug Kalika, the Department Chair of

Chemical & Materials Engineering. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the “Ad Hoc Review

Committee of Graduate Scholarship Awards, Stipends, and Fellowships,” chaired by Dr. Kalika (often referred

to as the Kalika Report), which was completed on May 8, 2014. Then Provost Christine Riordan appointed this

committee. Dr. Kalika provided comments on the goals and process of his committee, and noted that the

objectives of his committee—review of the distribution of tuition awards and fellowships, pros and cons of

centralized/decentralized structure for Graduate Education, how any changes might be managed in the context

of a new budget model--were much more focused than those of the Blue Ribbon Panel. The discussion turned to

a more broad overview of graduate education at UK over the past ~20 years, including the role of individuals

such as Wimberly Royster and Dan Reedy in placing a higher priority on graduate education, the expectation

that resources for graduate education would increase substantially when Paul Patton was governor (Bucks for

Brains program), the change in tuition for post-qualifying graduate students, and the removal of the Graduate

School from the Office of the Vice President for Research. The historical perspective that Dr. Kalika brought to

this committee was informative. It was noted that the recommendations of the 2014 Ad Hoc Review Committee

of Graduate Scholarship Awards, Stipends, and Fellowships were largely ignored.

2.8 Analytics meetings

(May 1, 2017; June 7, 2017; and July 21 2017)

Access to data regarding graduate student progress and success was requested by each subcommittee. The

ability to capture data is challenging and access and coordination of data to support graduate outcomes is in the

early stage of development when compared to real-time metrics used to chart undergraduate student success.

The BRP sub-committee chairs met with members of the Graduate School and Institutional Research &

Advanced Analytics Information Technology Services (ITS) on several occasions to discern what data could be

accessed and what data would need further development. The purpose of these meetings was to determine if

there were metrics that are common among programs that can be accessed from the program reviews or current

databases. It was revealed that there are challenges related to access to good data and how this data informs and

is central to the review process across the University of Kentucky campus. The role of the external review is for

self-improvement for the Department and College Units. Inherent in this process is the importance of generating

questions and a focused path for the strategic plan. There is a lot of data collection that is implied to be captured

for self-growth and many programs provide sensitive data and questions that might be uncomfortable and show

vulnerabilities if the data is shared without permission and on a global level. One advantage of the periodic

review is that departments and colleges can identify areas of self-improvement that might be sensitive.

Jeopardizing this confidentiality would neutralize the process. It was determined that data from the periodic

review might not provide robust data for common comparison but that coordination of this process in the future

would provide a mechanism to gather common outcomes among programs.

The goal in the future is to use Taskstream system to collect information. This will be a new system that will

hopefully streamline data integration on campus. The challenge with assessing quality is the ability to

consistently evaluate metrics and apply those across programs. An external review provides an internal

assessment and often the department or college is more open to providing weaknesses. The hope for the future

is there will be some metrics that are consistent among programs while still allowing for the introspective

evaluation that currently takes place for department and college reviews.

18

Institutional effectiveness provides the opportunity for data integration that can be better shared among

constituents. The meetings highlighted the importance of integrating the Graduate School and Institutional

Effectiveness to develop processes and definitions that would be standardized for institutional monitoring. The

Graduate School and Institutional Effectiveness were extremely helpful and willing to share and work with our

committee to provide data and tableau dashboards when accessible.

There were several pieces of data that were requested and included:

Graduate Education-related Data (with status)

• Number of Degrees by program/college, Masters and Doctoral

• Underrepresented minorities (URM) representation by program/college

• Enrollment/Class Headcounts

• Credit Hours

• Graduate Student Retention Rate

• Graduate Time to Degree (TTD)

• TA Number Allocation

• Graduate Student Stipend mounts

• Admissions Yield and Selectivity

There were several other questions that would require further coordination that were sought to promote program

success and for use in program and university evaluation. Several are highlighted below:

• The number of graduate students who live in school housing?

• The number of graduate students in online programs and/or individual course?

• The number of international graduate students?

• Mechanisms and procedures to capture post-college outcomes?

• Access to financial aid information to determine cost analysis and debt load?

Coordination and planning to access comparable metrics among and between programs:

• Metrics (e.g., publications/presentations)?

• Post-doctoral positions awarded?

• Fellowships awarded?

• Employment information for graduates?

As a result of our work and facilitation to coordinate a cohesive effort between the Graduate School and

Institutional Research & Advanced Analytics Information Technology Services (ITS) many of the analytic

requests were provided to the committee albeit it for a condensed time frame (2015-2017), and others available

for the future. Data provided to the committee included:

• TA Allocations by college (2015-2017)

• Selectivity Yield (2015-2017)

In addition, there are several Tableau workbooks that have been created which provide data related to:

• Graduate Time to Degree (TTD)

• Graduate Student Retention Rate

• Number of Degrees by program/college, Masters and Doctoral

• URM representation by program/college

• Enrollment/Class Headcounts

• Credit Hours

In summary, the requests and coordinated efforts between the BRP committee and the Graduate School and

Institutional Research & Advanced Analytics Information Technology Services (ITS) highlighted areas where

19

data is readily accessible and areas that need further refinement for future development and evaluation. Many of

those recommendations are found throughout this report.

2.9 Chairs and Co-Chairs bi-weekly meeting from date to date

(May – August 2017, monthly; Beginning August 28, bi-weekly)

To facilitate the development of the report, the committee was organized according to four themes: Growth and

Innovation, Graduate Student Experience (including student funding), Infrastructure (including funding

considerations), and Evaluation/Assessment/Quality. Each sub-committee was asked to identify two co-chairs

who would provide leadership and assume the role for each sub-committee report. The co-chairs were: Gregory

Luhan and Terry Lennie (Growth and Innovation), Kaylynne Glover and David Puleo (Graduate Student

Experience), Mark Lauersdorf and Mark Coyne (Infrastructure), and Katie Cardarelli and Jenny Minier

(Evaluation/Assessment/Quality). The structure provided smaller groups to prioritize and focus the energy of

the sub-committees to reduce redundancies. The co-chair meetings provided a space to discuss the work of the

subcommittees and to seek assistance on how best to coordinate meetings on campus. The result was that the

research and data gathering/compilation were organized for better efficiency. The meetings provided a weekly

framework for each subcommittee to make progress developing a cohesive report.

2.10 Meetings with the Provost

Monthly

Blue Ribbon Committee Co-Chairs Brett Spear and Carl Mattacola met monthly with Provost Tim Tracy. The

purpose of the meetings was to share progress and seek assistance/counsel in accessing resources on campus. In

addition, discussion evolved to discuss different approaches to promoting graduate education and identifying

benchmark institutions to research or visit for comparison.

2.11 Website and Blog

A website (http://www.uky.edu/provost/blue-ribbon-committee-graduate-education) was developed through the

Provost's office to communicate the panel's work and share updated progress information. The website featured

the committee's charge, the process, a list of committee members, and information and a link to the graduate

education survey results from Stamats. A link to submit feedback for comments or questions from the campus

community was included.

An interactive blog (http://www.uky.edu/provost/blue-ribbon-committee-blog-stamats-report) was launched in

November to facilitate further communication and feedback. The first blog post was a summary and link to a

Stamats report, commissioned by the Graduate School, entitled, "Report of Innovative Approaches to Graduate

Education and Marketplace Characteristics."

2.12 Benchmark Study on Interdisciplinary Studies

The need to offer interdisciplinary studies was a common theme discussed in the open forums and meetings. A

benchmark analysis study was conducted to determine how other institutions in the United States structure

interdisciplinary studies and programs. We found it varied greatly with the strongest interdisciplinary programs

being housed as independent offices, institutions, or centers (e.g., Duke University, Purdue University, Stanford

University, University of Arizona, and Vanderbilt University).

INDEPENDENT OFFICES/INSTITUTES/CENTERS

Duke University

https://sites.duke.edu/interdisciplinary/

They have an extensive website with a lot of information for competitive grant funding (for faculty and

students), different centers, and collaborative opportunities. Duke has a Vice Provost for

Interdisciplinary Studies.

20

Purdue University

http://www.purdue.edu/gradschool/oigp/index.html

Purdue’s interdisciplinary operates under the graduate school but as a separate Office of

Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs.

Stanford University

https://interdisciplinary.stanford.edu/

At Stanford, the focus is on the belief institutes remove barriers “that prevent new ideas from one

discipline from being applied to other areas of research.”

University of Arizona

http://gidp.arizona.edu/

The collaborative relationship between colleges across campus and the 15 GIDPs creates unique

opportunities for students to pursue and realize their aspirations in new research bringing about change

serving the community and the world.

Vanderbilt University

https://gradschool.vanderbilt.edu/research/interdisciplinary_research.php

Vanderbilt is unique as interdisciplinary research operates under the graduate school, research, and

through individual centers and institutions.

UNIQUE PROGRAMS

Harvard University

http://www.pz.harvard.edu/topics/disciplinary-interdisciplinary-studies

Harvard’s interdisciplinary falls under a Project Zero umbrella. Interdisciplinary studies is only a small

piece of this initiative. The website also offers links to interdisciplinary research findings.

University of California, Davis

https://grad.ucdavis.edu/programs/graduate-groups

While this operates under the graduate school, UC, Davis has the “Graduate Group Concept” which

gives individuals the “freedom to explore your interests across disciplines, engage in various areas of

research, and reach new heights of knowledge.”

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

https://www.grad.umn.edu/projects-priorities-interdisciplinary-initiatives/idgg

Minnesota’s is also under the graduate school but offers graduate groups. “Members of interdisciplinary

graduate groups share the particular group’s intellectual focus, as reflected in grants, fellowships,

publications, conference participation, and/or teaching, among other scholarly, creative and professional

activities.”

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

http://gradschool.unc.edu/funding/gradschool/royster/interdisciplinarity.html

UNC’s program is also under the graduate school, but those participating in interdisciplinary research

are members of the Royster Society of Fellows. Royster Fellows participate in a research seminar and

teach interdisciplinary undergraduate courses at UNC.

OPERATED UNDER RESEARCH

21

University of Chicago

http://www.uchicago.edu/research/centers/

OPERATED SOLELY UNDER GRADUATE SCHOOL

Michigan State University

https://grad.msu.edu/interdisciplinaryprograms

Ohio State University

https://gradsch.osu.edu/degree-options

University of California, Berkeley

http://grad.berkeley.edu/programs/interdisciplinary/

Has a list of guidelines for faculty supporting interdisciplinary PhD students.

University of Colorado, Boulder

http://www.colorado.edu/graduateschool/programs/dual-degree-programs

University of Georgia

http://grad.uga.edu/index.php/prospective-students/academics/interdisciplinary-graduate-programs/

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

http://www.rackham.umich.edu/programs-of-study#dual

University of Washington

http://grad.uw.edu/about-the-graduate-school/interdisciplinary-programs/

QUASI-INTERDISCIPLINARY

University of South Carolina

Does not have interdisciplinary degrees at the graduate level, but undergraduates can earn a bachelor’s

of science in interdisciplinary studies (a.k.a., general studies)

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Does not have interdisciplinary officially established; however, a new initiative has been

implemented: A fresh take on the collaborative training grant: preparing artists and scholars for the

21st century (Sept. 21, 2016) https://grad.wisc.edu/ctg/

University of Wyoming

Has interdisciplinary degrees at the graduate level, but the programs are not centralized and are offered

independently. It also appears up to the student to make the collaboration happen.

22

APPENDIX 3.1 – 3.4

3.1 GROWTH AND INNOVATION

Committee members

Terry Lennie and Gregory Luhan (Co-Chairs), Donna Arnett, Kip Guy, Sarah Lyon, and Kai Zhang

Growth + Innovation_Subcommittee (Final Report)

21 December 2017

Growth is defined as a) an increase in capacity (perhaps through increased enrollment an d/or quality of

enrollment) b) the discovery and implementation of new or better resources (funding, research support, and

facilities) c) that increases aggregate quality and productivity. Growth is aligned with c) perceived and actual

value (perceived value-added and monetary compensation) d) and positively associated with an increased

quality of life or standard of living that e) improves some measurable of success.

growth = enhancing and expanding the types of credentials (Micro-credentials) and degrees (Degree +)

Innovation is defined as a) something fresh (new, original, or improved) b) that creates value c) that more often

than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things

innovation = rethinking the educational ecosystem, inventing curriculum and opportunities, rethinking the

academic semester.

Subcommittee Report Summary

The operational goals outlined for the Growth + Innovation subcommittee focus on emerging themes that

enhance the student experience, increase enrollment, improve workforce and professional development in a

manner that is market responsive, and reduce the time-to-degree so that the time in school aligns with

benchmark institutions. The common traits discovered in the sub-committee research relate to the necessity for

an increase in program nimbleness, an increase in entrepreneurship, a renewed focus on interdisciplinary teams

and collaboration, and the presence of a dynamic and active graduate college that adds value to and benefits all

Colleges and Departments at the University of Kentucky.

To achieve these innovative and growth goals, it was noted that the Graduate School should become a Graduate

College that, like all other colleges at UKY, should report to the Provost. Like the other colleges, an inspired

Dean must lead the Graduate College. This dean must be capable of working across disciplines to develop

opportunities, decrease barriers to collaboration, and dynamically improve the requisite "soft skills" that enable

all graduate students to have a robust academic career while connecting them to the emerging workforce.

Becoming a stand-alone college comes with distinct advantages and challenges. These include, but are not

limited to funding models, assessment and metrics; and graduate research.

An integral part of the topic “growth and innovation” was the phrase “discovery.” Discovery in this context is

an interactive mechanism for establishing bridges within the university that connects discipline specificity with

interdisciplinary approaches. These include developing new programs, engaging in applied and translational

research, bringing real-world solutions into the classroom, and actively connecting those opportunities to

emerging professions (both academic and non-academic). It was discussed that one of the primary roles of

graduate education is tied to research and therefore, one of the aims of the Graduate School/College is to

augment research across the University. It was also discussed that the Graduate School/College, with its pulse

of emerging trends, could also play a formative role in assisting all Colleges and Centers/Institutes to build

23

academic programs. Both of these areas must be developed further as they require a significant amount of

resources and nimbleness.

According to the Chronicle 2024 Job Outlooks Report, “primary, secondary, and undergraduate education is

well suited to the needs of a catching-up economy whereas graduate schools focusing on research education are

more indispensable in a country where growth relies more on frontier innovations.” The Growth + Innovation

Sub-committee felt that a Graduate College could exist similar to the recently formed Lewis Honors College. In

the case of Lewis, a significant endowment enabled an interdisciplinary and integrated living and learning

community (LLC). The College is comprised of students across the University and is an integral component of

the student recruitment experience. Further, the Honors College offers unique programmatic offering that brings

faculty and students from varied disciplines to create educational and undergraduate research opportunities. In

this sense, the Graduate College would be an "Honors College" at the graduate level.

In 2010, the National Research Council released a report describing the broad skills students need to succeed

when facing the future challenges of the workplace. Often described as "21st Century Skills," these include a

mix of cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal attributes such as collaboration and teamwork, creativity and

imagination, critical thinking, and problem-solving. (Resource: James W. Pellegrino and Margaret L. Hilton,

eds., Committee on Defining Deeper Learning and 21st Century Skills; Center for Education; Division on

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council, 2010). The Growth + Innovation

Sub-committee noted that providing appropriate resources for the Graduate College for the tasks/functions that

they are assigned would be transformative for the College. At the current time, the Graduate School/College

currently pays a good portion of its staffing costs with soft money from application fees. As Graduate School

applications have declined, so has the level of Graduate school funding. The Growth + Innovation Sub-

committee is mindful that for the Graduate School/College to foster growth and innovation, that the University

of Kentucky upper-level administration must realize and understand both the intrinsic and extrinsic value of

graduate education and understand that value isn't always tied to or derived from revenue generation. The

Growth + Innovation Sub-committee, also noted that the value of funded research is recognized in monetary

terms, but that the value of both funded and unfunded graduate research and education have varied monetary

value. These include the prestige, respect, recognition, teaching, and training that it brings to the institution.

The result of the subcommittee research were three goals:

Goal 1 | Promote interdisciplinary innovation in response to market needs

Goal 2 | Enable a robust student experience

Goal 3 | Increase the number of high-quality graduates

Tracking Success

Institutions increasingly are measured on their student outcomes. The Growth + Innovation subcommittee noted

several methods that are currently being used across the institution that could be augmented by an improve

graduate educational model. These include: New Ways of Teaching Students that “shift the conversation on

campuses from teaching and pedagogical practices, to mechanisms that address how to better assess student

learning Institutions now have this ability to track, collect, and aggregate more of the data on learning moments

captured electronically in the classroom,” said Fred Singer, CEO of Echo360, a technology company that sells

lecture-capture tools and helps universities make sense of the real-time data they are collecting. In addition to

tracking students’ data, tracking faculty data and resource alignment will be necessary. The Growth +

Innovation subcommittee noted that several institutions reward faculty members for their teaching. This

demonstrates that some institutions are investing resources in teaching and learning centers as more professors

are showing interest in the science of learning.

• Measure student learning in real time and allow students and professors to shift their behavior to change

outcomes. This technology—known as data analytics or predictive analytics—is powered by the

information bites being created in classrooms every minute of the day

24

• Provide more personalized advising and course delivery. Colleges and universities will need to build a

new faculty model, from differentiating between research and teaching positions to varying pathways to

tenure, to even new tenure clocks that guarantee a specific time commitment followed by one-year

contracts.

Degrees + Stackable Credentials

With 40 percent of overall student debt now held by graduate students, more and more twenty-somethings are

questioning the value of a master’s degree. The number of American students enrolling in graduate school has

been on the decline since 2011 (although overall enrollment is up because of international students). The

Growth + Innovation subcommittee noted an emerging trend for students who want to earn a credential without

the time constraints of a traditional degree. It was suggested that the path through higher education increasingly

include multiple credentials that students earn throughout their lifetime as their careers shift in an ever-evolving

economy—from traditional colleges to boot camps with short-term classes. The Graduate School/College could

play a formative role in this area.

“Collaboration in this new era involves colleges and universities coming together as seemingly one institution

to change their future direction,” the Parthenon-EY report said. The Growth + Innovation subcommittee noted

that at a minimum, the Graduate School/College could be retooled to maximize needed skills and attributes.

Beyond workshops and immersive training, the Graduate School/College could be viewed as the “go to source”

for providing strong fundamentals in writing, reading, coding, and math; creativity, critical thinking,

communication, and collaboration; grit, self-motivation, and lifelong learning habits; and entrepreneurship and

improvisation—at every level.

The Growth + Innovation Sub-committee noted that a faculty advisory committee for the Graduate School

could exist as parallel to a college's faculty council in that it could advise the Graduate College Dean. The

Growth + Innovation Sub-committee saw the University Senate Committee on Research and Graduate

Education and the Graduate Council as functioning in this capacity as part of their charges.

1. Develop of programs that provide a higher degree of flexibility in curriculum exploration.

a. For example- the graduate college could foster/develop an approach to masters or doctoral

education that builds on the idea of the honors college.

b. The ability to create programs that inspire- this recent piece reminded me of the power of

providing flexibility in the design of an educational path.

2. Rethink Time-intensive approaches | The students work in faculty labs year-round, aiding a professor's

projects and pursuing some of their ideas. A series of training workshops bolsters their skills, with a

heavy emphasis on writing skills.

Opportunities

Diversity of Teaching Positions - Standardizing and elevating the teaching-only role of faculty on campuses

would eliminate the ad-hoc hiring of adjuncts that occurs now and professionalize the teaching corps by

recruiting academics interested first and foremost in instruction. That, in turn, would provide another pathway

for graduate students into academic careers and encourage graduate programs to create programs for students

who want to focus on teaching at universities. Most of all, it would replace what is mostly now a two-tiered

system on campuses of haves and have-nots, where academics in the second tier are lowly paid and valued, and

usually not in that tier by choice. This two-track model is heavily favored across higher education, according to

an extensive survey of 1,500 faculty members, administrators, and policymakers conducted by the Delphi

Project at the University of Southern California in 2015. In the study, 50 percent of tenured faculty and 70

percent of full-time, non-tenured faculty said they found the idea of customized pathways in a particular area of

practice attractive. So, too, did 68 percent of deans and 74 percent of accreditors. Resource: Adrianna Kezar,

25

Daniel Maxey, 3and Elizabeth Holcombe, “The Professoriate Reconsidered,” The Delphi Project on the

Changing Faculty and Student Success, October 2015.

• Provide external grants are couched as not making money for the university, but they do generate

support for graduate education in the form of RAs, and other funds for graduate student support.

• Noted success . . . College of Education has had great success in altering the dissertation process, but

they had to come to the Graduate School with the requests and proposals and have had no infrastructure

or support for it from the Graduate School as an entity.

• External regulations and requirements also constrain innovation: SACSCOC, CPE, EPSB, etc.

Graduate School/College as Advocate

The Growth + Innovation Sub-committee sees the Graduate College as playing a critical role in promoting

advocacy for graduate education and graduate research. As an advocate for graduate education, the Graduate

College would oversee the graduate student experience from recruitment to graduation. As an advocate, the

Graduate College would enable consistency, equity, and coordination in regards graduate education and

research across campus. The discussion areas include time to degree/profession, equitable TA and RA stipends,

dual degree programs, interdisciplinary initiatives, and centrally coordinated graduate-level recruitment. One

advantage of a stronger structure is the Graduate College could assure that funding is reaching and supporting

efforts for graduate students. In this sense, the Graduate School/College would be the location for central

advocacy pertaining to graduate education. As the advocate, the Graduate School/College could create a space

for safe innovation by promoting/fostering conditions for innovation within the local structures and by

interacting with SACS, CPE, EPSB, etc. to create room (within the regulations) for experimentation. To

maintain this innovation, the Graduate School/College could serve as a hub for motivated students, staff, and

faculty to focus on the situation at hand, that enables them to learn new tools when necessary, and to adapt

existing knowledge and skills to meet emerging challenges.

Centralized versus Decentralized Models

The Growth + Innovation Sub-committee noted that the topic “centralization” should also be examined at the

University-level as well as the College/Unit-level. In the subcommittee research, centralization was identified at

benchmark institutions such as Indiana University (IU). At IU, curricular delivery models, such as synchronous

models of distance learning were centralized at the university-level, not at the graduate school level. IU also

maintains synchronicity across programs through University-level centralized resource management.

- "centers of innovation" should be university-level.

- "transferable skills" initiatives should be university-level (includes undergrads as much as grad

students).

- there is talk of articulation across levels from undergrad to Ma to Ph.D. to postdoc, there needs to be

central advocacy for this to happen (probably also at the university level, not the grad school, but the

grad school is indeed a significant player in this).

Defining Attributes of Growth and Innovation in Higher Education

Innovation is a foundational concept within higher education discourse today. The term innovation, although an

imprecise one that defies simple definition, has become ubiquitous in collective discussions about the future of

universities in the 21st century. For example, Winglet reviewed thirty-nine higher education journals in 2010

and found nearly 500 articles that used the term innovation in their title or abstract.1 However, both change and

1 Winslett, G.M. (2010). Resistance: Re-imagining innovation in higher education teaching and learning (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis).

Queensland University of Technology. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/32086/ (accessed July 10, 2017).

26

innovation have been consistent fixtures of higher education since its inception.2 The emerging field of

“innovation studies” broadly defines the concept as new combinations of existing knowledge and resources.3

Within the context of higher education specifically, Tierney and Lanford expand on this to define innovation as

the “implementation of a creative product or process and its perceived novelty and impact within a given field

once it has undergone diffusion and evaluation by a critical audience.”4 Other scholars offer up more fine-

grained definitions. For example, Christensen and Eyring apply the theory of the “innovators dilemma” to

higher education, distinguishing between sustaining innovations that improve existing goods and services to

hold onto existing markets and disruptive innovations that capture new markets by embracing new technologies

and adopting new business models.5 It’s important to note that some critics question the usefulness of the

concept within higher education, arguing that the discourse of innovation may obscure the dramatic

transformations within the sector, such as the rise of reductive outcome measures for evaluation, the

commercialization of knowledge, and the pursuit of efficiency.6

Several challenges are facing higher education that demand innovative responses. These include: the shift

towards a model where consumers (students) have far more significant educational choice7, the growing

importance of knowledge-intensive trade for economic development, the spread of technological innovation that

threatens to undercut existing job sectors and the consequent need to help students develop the skills that will

enable them to compete in rapidly evolving labor markets, dramatic changes in enrollment patterns and the

expansion of university systems outside of the United States and Europe; and the continued decline in

government funding for higher education8 Innovation within higher education can be encouraged through the

formation of diverse workforces, incentive structures based on intrinsic motivations rather than external

rewards, and autonomy.9 Significantly, there are aspects of universities that are worthy of protection during

periods of disruptive change including the cohesiveness and dynamism of the learning community on the one

hand and the integrity of the teaching and learning process on the other.10

There is broad consensus that the global competitiveness of the United States and our nation's capacity for

innovation are intrinsically linked to a robust system of graduate education.11 Between 2010 and 2020,

about 2.6 million new and replacement jobs are expected to require an advanced degree, with a projected

increase of about 22 percent for jobs requiring a master’s degree and about 20 percent for jobs requiring a

2 Tierney W.G., Lanford M. (2016) Conceptualizing Innovation in Higher Education. In: Paulsen M. (Eds.) Higher Education:

Handbook of Theory and Research. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol 31. Springer. 3 Fagerberg, Jan, Morten Fosaas, and Koson Sapprasert. 2012. Innovation: Exploring the Knowledge Base. Research Policy 41:1132-

1153. 4 Tierney, William G., and Michael Lanford. 2016. Cultivating Strategic Innovation in Higher Education. Available at:

https://www.tiaainstitute.org/sites/default/files/presentations/2017-02/cultivating_strategic_innovation_in_higher_ed.pdf (Accessed

July 10, 2017). 5 Christensen, Clayton M., and Henry J. Eyring. 2011. The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the

Inside Out. 6 Moffatt, Ken, Melanie Panitch, Henry Parada, Sarah Todd, Lisa Barnoff, and Jordan Aslett. 2016. ‘Essential Cogs in the Innovation

Machine’: The Discourse of Innovation in Ontario Educational Reform. Review of Education Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 38(4):

317-340. 7 8 (Tierney and Lanford 2016). 9 Tierney and Lanford 2016. See also: Tierney, William G. 2014. Creating a Culture of Innovation: The Challenge of Becoming and

Staying a World-Class University. Available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559354 (Accessed July 12, 2017). 10 Keohane, Nannerl O. 2013. Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Innovation, Adaptation, Preservation. Political Science

and Politics 46(1): 102-105. 11 FGE. 2010. The Path Forward: The Future of Graduate Education in the United States: Executive Summary. ETS and CGS.

Available at: http://www.fgereport.org/rsc/pdf/ExecSum_PathForward.pdf (Accessed July 11, 2017).

27

doctorate or professional degree.12 In order to ensure that our graduate education system continues to enhance

U.S. innovation and competitiveness, we must prepare more graduate students for the full spectrum of careers

inside and outside the academy across all occupational sectors.13 One innovative outlook to further this goal is a

shift in the focus of doctoral education from the ‘PhD as a product’ model (that is, the contribution to the

advancement of knowledge through an original piece of research), to the ‘PhD as a process’ one (or a training

providing the necessary competencies to become a knowledge worker fitting the needs of the global labor

market in a knowledge economy).14

The projected increased demand for advanced degrees necessitates that innovations in graduate education must

be coupled with strategic growth. Growth is a) an increase in capacity (perhaps through increased enrollment

and/or quality of enrollment) b) the discovery and implementation of new or better resources (funding, research

support, and facilities) c) that increases aggregate quality and productivity. Growth is c) aligned with value

(perceived value-added and monetary) d) and positively associated with an increased quality of life or standard

of living that e) improves some measure of success (must be measurable).15 Growth is inevitable; however, it's

critical that this growth make sense within the University of Kentucky's unique context of opportunities and

constraints. Bok argues that the burden of growth makes it critically important for universities to be clear about

their purposes and priorities so they can concentrate on the critical activities that are closely aligned with the

goals and niche of the institution. He urges against the unnecessary growth that may occur when universities

initiate (a) new programs not because of their intrinsic contribution to the core mission of the institution, but for

other motives (such as pleasing donors or attracting prestigious faculty) and/or (b) profit-seeking activities

which may create a conflict between the desire to make money and the fundamental academic values of the

university.16

A Push for Innovation

The Growth + Innovative Subcommittee identified different models that could be used to inform the new

Graduate College. These relate to teamwork, applied and experiential learning, industry engagement, and

pluridisciplinary collaboration that address real-world problems. The Growth + Innovative Subcommittee

research saw both individual students or small teams who work to address difficult concepts, conduct research

studies to learn how a particular skill might apply in the real world, and where lessons were developed to teach

peers a related theory from another discipline that would add depth to their subsequent course projects. Often,

these concepts were developed in a “sprint competition model.” This modality had students spending the

equivalent of one day on each of the following five activities: understanding the problem, developing multiple

solutions, choosing one idea to advance, creating a prototype of the proposed project, and testing it with a real

audience. Results were presented in a public showcase where winners are selected by a panel that might include

faculty and staff members as well as community leaders.

As an empowered Graduate /School College, the College would have a core responsibility for the promoting the

"how to" portion of graduate education. For example, how to do research; how to teach; how to engage in

outreach, etc.). This role could align with the disciplinary unit responsibilities to focus on the "what to" portion

of the education framework. For example, what to research; what to teach; etc. that leads to increased

proficiency in your job but that you are reskilling to improve your capacity, continuing to learn, and that you are

aspiring to go beyond where you are.

12 FGE. 2012. Pathways through Graduate School and Into Careers: Executive Summary. ETS and CGS. Available at:

http://pathwaysreport.org/rsc/pdf/ex_summary.pdf (Accessed July 11, 2017). 13 Ibid. 14 Durette, Barthélémy, Marina Fournier, and Matthieu Lafon. 2016. The Core Competencies of PhDs. Studies in Higher Education

41(8):1355-1370. 15 Working definitions distributed on 5/22/17. 16 Bok, Derek. 2013. Higher Education in America. Princeton University Press.

28

Integrate pedagogical models that promote rapid learning that prepares students to become exemplary cross-

disciplinary innovators that can address complex technical, social, economic, and political systems capable of

addressing global challenges

The Graduate School/College should be developed and seen as an environment that is designed to foster fast

and enduring innovation. A part of the evolution of the current Graduate School into a transformative Graduate

College, the University of Kentucky should promote a range of high-impact educational practices that can

capably shape programs across the University, assess their benefits, and repeat their positive successes.

Contribute value to the graduate college (put 10%-20% DOE dedicated to advancing educational and research

missions of the college)

An innovative graduate education involves being mindful of the part-time and off-campus student

constituencies that are not "traditional" full-time on-campus graduate students. To this end, the Graduate

College should identify key or targeted recruitment areas. In comparison to undergraduate programs, the major

feeder channels of undergraduate education are limited to high school graduates or community college students

and graduates. Taking this approach to the next level, the Graduate College would play an instrumental role in

building capacity for graduate education that takes into account multiple types of constituents and through

multiple channels - not just degrees, but credentials and micro-credentialing. By approaching graduate

education and graduate-level research in this manner, a wider array of multiple stakeholders and multiple points

of contact could emerge and tie into life-long educational trajectories. This "Degree +" approach would promote

a nimbleness regarding focus and curriculum. In the subcommittee research, this curated student experience

could radically transform graduate education and research.

- how do we allow students and faculty to innovate “safely

- "time to degree" vs. "time to the profession" is an important distinction that came out of our meeting

with the Graduate School leadership team. - "time" is an important variable/constraint.

• .... we talk about "time to degree," what about "time to topic," "time to knowledge," "time to

credential," etc.

• .... why do we link graduate education to an undergraduate time model (16-week semesters;

"classes" can only be of certain types with specific schedules; etc.)?

- regardless of the infrastructures in place for graduate education, it comes down to the people that inhabit

those foundations and their abilities to promote innovation, nimbleness, advocacy, etc.

• .... but without the institutional infrastructures, there is no space within which a dynamic individual

can efficiently innovate, advocate, and maneuver nimbly

• .... achieve results by effectively partnering and teaming and leading change

Overall Growth Recommendations:

• Increase total number of students (PhD, Masters, Professional)

• Increase quality of students

• Increase quality of education

• Increase value of education

• Recruitment – attracting students

• Funding - multi-year fellowships that can cover the cost of education, tuition, books, fees, housing, and

parking

• Bringing UK students to the world via Study Abroad, “peace corps” “NGO” Partnering, and “Shoulder-

to-Shoulder”

• Bringing the world to UK by increasing the number of international students

29

• Increase interdisciplinarity

• Increase entrepreneurship (what does it mean to be entrepreneurial across each discipline)?

• Develop a student-centric personalized education plan

• Develop online forums that increase the number of students

Overall Innovation Recommendations:

• Nomenclature shift the Graduate School to a Graduate College

• Hire an empowered Dean

• Re-organize the Graduate College

• Endow the Graduate College

• Define quality

• Develop market-responsive and market-leading programs that are distinctive

• Intentionality of student scholarship

• Innovation in terms of program delivery of content

• Pursue Professional certification

• Innovation in terms of program value, mentoring

• Defining graduation education: role of graduate education on campus, role of graduate education in

industry, role of graduate education across the state

• Increase the amount of faculty-led funded research

• Pursue student innovation

• Work to develop multi-pronged success paths university-wide, college-wide, and department/unit-wide]

• Increase service learning especially those that are linked to real-world situations, collaboration, team-

based approaches, resources, faculty, and topics

• Increase leadership opportunities that prepare students to be future leaders – strategic planning, finance,

inter-personal learning (best practices), soft skills, courses on leadership, financial literacy, and

innovation

• Revisit UK protocols and rules that are perceived as barriers to graduate education

Goals, Recommendations, Metrics

Goal 1 | Promote interdisciplinary innovation in response to market needs Innovation

Tactics

• Develop interdisciplinary student and faculty education opportunities within and across universities

(e.g., Big 10 Academic Alliance; Michigan Intercollegiate Graduate Studies; Vanderbilt

Interdisciplinary Research Opportunities)

o Interdisciplinary programs are a cost effective way to offer students across all disciples a

range of courses that enrich their learning and career development; this also provides faculty

with ongoing development opportunities through cross institutional collaboration

• Create common minor(s) that all graduate programs could include in their curriculum (e.g., 30 UG

University of Florida majors have one common minor: Innovation. Innovation Minor courses are

designed to provide a core knowledge base and a skill set to prepare students for the 21st century

economy. Classes include entrepreneurship, creativity, and leadership and ethics that result

in an innovative mindset.

o This is also a cost effective way to provide students in multiple disciplines training and

mentorship toward becoming innovators in their fields and obtain skills in interdisciplinary

collaboration

• Create “umbrella faculty cohorts” and increase number of joint faculty appointments that promote

rapid creation of new degree options in response to market demands

30

o Faculty are in academic silos by virtue of the current structure of academic programs in the

Graduate School. Creating these cohorts will allow flexibility for faculty to teach and share

their expertise across programs.

• Expand professional development programs in the Graduate College that prepare students for the

competitive marketplace including, ones focused professional development for academia (Professor

of the Future; e.g., UC Davis) and professional development outside of academia (Professional of

the Future; e.g., Faber Center at the University of South Carolina; Texas A&M Versatile Ph.D.

Career Tool; UNC maker in residence program)

o Due to the changing job market and student interests, a large proportion of graduates are

seeking employment outside of academia. Creating programs similar to those of our

benchmark institutions will allow UK to remain competitive as well as assure we are meeting

our students’ career goals.

• Create an external advisory board for Graduate College Dean to guide investment in market responsive

strategies and programs

o Advisory boards serve two essential functions. One, they represent important external

communities of interest that will assist the dean with strategic planning to assure graduate

programs are meeting market needs. Two, they can help with development initiatives toward

endowing the Graduate College. Including the Vice President of Research on the advisory board

may help assure UK’s research portfolio is responsive to market needs.

• Develop methods that allow individualization of graduate degrees to meet students’ needs

o Create individualized degree programs may allow for tailored curriculum that in turn will enable

more agile responses to student success such as enabling students to quickly exit from a program.

Essential to this topic is the student’s ability to maintain portability of credit across graduate

programs, thus allowing the student the opportunity to change programs without adding

additional time to degree.

Metrics

• Number of students enrolled in interdisciplinary, dual major, or joint degree graduate programs

• Number of faculty engaged in cross-disciplinary graduate programs and inter-university collaboration

and career enhancement opportunities promoting innovation

• Employer and graduate satisfaction with degree program outcomes

• Graduate student retention rates in degree programs

• Appointment of an advisory board that is representative of external communities of interest

Resources

• Support for University Senate / Administration joint working group to address degree individualization

Goal 2 | Enable a robust student experience

Tactics

• Create service learning opportunities and increase the number of graduate level study abroad programs

o This is an important strategy for increasing the global reach of graduate programs, broadening

the perspectives of our graduates, and preparing them to live and work in an increasing global

society. The ability to participate in global learning experiences is many high quality students

consider when deciding on applying to graduate programs.

• Implement programs that provide leadership opportunities to prepare students to be future leaders –

strategic planning, finance, inter-personal learning (best practices), soft skills, courses on leadership,

financial literacy and innovation

31

o Providing these leaning opportunities through the Graduate College will allow individual

graduate programs to focus on discipline-specific preparation and eliminate duplication of

content in programs across campus

• Increase enrollment and retention of a diverse student body by housing an office of diversity in the

Graduate College that creates initiatives for diverse student recruitment and support (e.g., VU-EDGE

Ph.D. Pre-VU Recruitment at Vanderbilt University; University of Georgia Graduate Feeder Program

o Diversity of the student body is an important way to enhance graduate student experience;

particularly for students from regions with limited diversity.

Metrics

• Number of students with diverse gender, racial, ethnic, religious, and financial backgrounds who

graduate promptly

• Number of students participating in global service learning opportunities and study abroad programs

• Number of students collaborating with students and faculty abroad

• Number of students enrolled in leadership opportunities offered by the Graduate College

Resources

• Support for the office of diversity and recruitment programs (the University of Wisconsin-Madison has

an assistant dean for diversity, inclusion, and funding in the graduate school)

• Support from the University Senate / Administration joint working group to normalize degree

expectations and establish methods for improving program performance.

• Graduate College resources to develop and offer leadership training opportunities

• Formal collaboration with the International Center to increase learning opportunities for graduate

students

• A centralized clearing house for graduate certificate programs offered across campus.

Goal 3 | Increase the number of high-quality graduates

Tactics

• Reduce time to degree while achieving all required accreditation standards by analyzing the root causes

of low graduation rates and longer than average time-to-degree in graduate programs

o Reducing time to degree will lower student costs and make UK more attractive to high quality

students

• Align course delivery modes (synchronous, asynchronous) to provide access to learning opportunities

not available on campus

o Providing learning enhancement opportunities not available on campus will allow UK to attract

high quality students who may otherwise go elsewhere for those opportunities

• Allow highly qualified students to enroll in graduate programs from a distance

o Many of the graduate programs are regional programs in that they primarily draw regionally

located students. Providing the ability for students across the country to enroll in programs will

create a national footprint for UK and allow programs to compete for high quality students at a

national level.

• Increase the number of international students

o Foreign countries are an important market for attracting high quality students who will also

enhance domestic graduate students’ experiences and increase UK’s global impact

• Create a formal collaborative relationship between the Dean of the Graduate College and Vice President

of Research to recruit high quality students by marketing faculty research.

o The Graduate School webpage is devoid of any information about the research being conducted

at UK. There is a complete disconnect between the research enterprise and the Graduate School.

32

Most Graduate Schools at research intensive universities highlight the research being conducted

at the university as a marketing strategy to attract students.

Metrics

• Doctoral programs admission selectivity

• Graduate student time to profession

• Number of graduates who secure competitive postdoctoral fellowships or are hired into highly

competitive academic and nonacademic positions

• Student professional placement and success outcomes measures

Resources

• Provide infrastructure to support synchronous online course delivery

• Increase funding to support full-time study

• Support for development of the new curricular modules

• Support from University Senate for implementation across the University

• Marketing of UK graduate programs internationally

Growth + Innovation | Time to Degree

Time-to-degree

This analysis is based upon data tables presented in Tableau capturing time-to-degree at the

program/department level and aggregate % graduation rates as measured at fixed 3-years and 7-years after entry

to the programs. The analysis was restricted to classes entering in 2004-2010, to ensure that all students should

have graduated or reached the 7-year endpoint and to allow for comparison with the National Science

Foundation published a report, which analyzed graduations in 2010-2015. Additionally, individual programs

were only included if they graduate 4 or more students in the time frame. The results are outlined in Figure 2

below. This would add value to any more quantitative analysis of internal data.

In the Master's programs, the overall mean time to graduation is two years (range in means 1 to 3 years), and the

average graduation rates are 71% at three years and 79% at seven years after entering the program (see Figure

3). These rates do not shift significantly across cohorts entering between 2004 and 2010 (the period analyzed

herein), although there is a trend towards a higher rate in later cohorts.

Comparing among Master’s programs shows that the majority of programs have a mean time to graduation of

between 1.5 and 2.8 years. The notable outliers with lengthier mean times are Hispanic Studies (3.1), Plant

Pathology (3.1), and Fine Arts – Theatre (3); the notable outliers with shorter mean times are Pharmacy

Academic Affairs (0.9), Accountancy (1), and Economics (1.1).

In the Doctoral programs, the overall mean time to graduation is five years (range in means 3-7) across all

programs, and the average graduation rates are 4% at three years and 51% at seven years after entering the

program. Again, the rates do not shift significantly across cohorts entering between 2004 and 2010 (the period

analyzed herein), although there is a trend towards a higher rate in later cohorts.

33

Comparing among Doctoral programs shows that the majority of programs have a mean time to graduation of

between four and six years. The notable outliers with lengthier mean times are Anthropology (7), English (6.6),

and Philosophy (6.6); the notable outliers with shorter mean times are Behavioral Science (2.8), unspecified

College of Education (3.1), Educational Leadership (3.2), Statistics (3.5), and Family Sciences (3.6).

Figure 2. Aggregate percentage (across all programs) of students graduating from

either a Master’s or Doctoral program at 3- and 7-years after entering the program.

34

Figure 3. Mean time-to-graduation for Masters and Doctoral programs based on classes entering the

respective programs between 2004 and 2010.

35

Taken together these data suggest that there is a broad “tail” in time to graduation with a significant number of

students taking 7+ years failing to graduate from both after 7+ years in either a Master’s and/or Doctoral

programs. It is not clear from the available data how many of those not graduated by seven years fail to

graduate have left the program. For this reason, while the mean time-to-graduation is a useful measure of

timeliness of graduation between programs; it will be important also to examine the broadness and magnitude of

the tails (number of students significantly delayed in graduation; how long those delays can extend) and the

overall success rate.

There is significant variance among programs with 6 Master's programs, and eight doctoral programs have

either significantly longer or shorter mean times to graduation. This suggests that there exist structural issues

among programs that lead to significantly variant mean time of progression. It will be essential to identify these

drivers and evaluate whether or not the differences are appropriately driven by the requirements of proving

professional competency.

Remaining questions

1) Absolute failure rate (how many who don't graduate by seven years are program failures)?

2) Better comparison with larger groups

3) Outlier analysis for long-graduators – program differences? How far can the range extend on that tail?

4) Quantitative analysis of differences between programs for time to progression – what are the significant

outliers?

When compared to national averages, in the aggregate, the University appears to be matching reasonably well to

our peers. The 2015 NSF report17 On earned doctorates shows that STEM doctorate time to degree averages 6-7

years (well in line with UK performance) and non-STEM doctorates average 8-10 years (longer than UK

performance). The NSF data from 2004-2015 is publically available and could be incorporated into a more

granular analysis to allow more meaningful comparison to UK programs. This would add value to any further

quantitative analysis of internal data.

Effort distribution

It is difficult to make a useful analysis of the disposition of effort data and how it relates to graduate

education in the current format. Significant data mapping would need to be undertaken to enable analysis.

Several fundamental questions are apparent that could be targeted and might be illuminating.

• TA vs. RA (vs. other) support for graduate students, especially Masters. Is there a correlation between

time spent teaching and delayed degree?

• Is there a way to capture faculty time spent on mentoring vs. teaching – is there an inverse correlation

between the amount of time spent mentoring and time to degree?

• Mapping class time to degree. Are there correlations between time spent in the classroom vs. time spent

in independent scholarly activity and time to degree?

Growth + Innovation | Benchmarking

Twenty benchmark universities were reviewed. Only one posted a self-study, UC-Davis.

Centralized versus decentralized. The graduate college is in a centralized location that supports postdoctoral

fellowships, professional development, and provides access to resources. The graduate college also contains

professional schools and programs. In this sense, the Graduate College is a clearinghouse for all graduate

education.

17 National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, “2015 Doctorate

Recipients from US Universities” June 2017

36

• Out of the 20 benchmarks reviewed, 18 have Graduate Schools and 2 have offices of graduate studies.

• Five house postdoctoral fellows in the Graduate School. One notable example not in our benchmarks is

the postdoctoral program at UCSF.

Diversity concerning student recruitment

• Five of our benchmarks have an office of diversity in the graduate school that assumes responsibility for

recruitment of diverse students and provides resources for student success.

• The VU-EDGE Ph.D. Pre-VU Recruitment at Vanderbilt University is a good model for recruiting high-

quality, diverse students from undergraduate programs

https://gradschool.vanderbilt.edu/about/diversity/recruitment/event.php

• University of Georgia Graduate Feeder Program provides a supportive transition for undergraduate

students to graduate school. Affiliated with four traditionally black colleges located in the US.

Career planning, pathways, academic, and non-academic

• Wisconsin-Madison provides a pathway planning website that includes careers beyond academia

• Texas A&M Versatile Ph.D. Career Tool is designed to help graduate students identify, prepare for,

and excel in non-academic careers. The Versatile Ph.D. connects students with people working outside

of the academy to provide original, first-person content from real-life Ph.D.'s and ABD's succeeding

outside of the academy.

• The University of California at Davis and Stanford University. In these programs, the graduate school

provides pathways to professional development that has led to significant growth and innovation. This

includes supporting international students.

• UC Davis has a competitive professional development program sponsored by the graduate school

called Professor of the Future designed to prepare UC Davis doctoral students and postdoctoral

scholars for an increasingly competitive marketplace and a rapidly changing university environment.

Interdisciplinary Education within and across universities.

• "Umbrella faculty" that are cross-disciplinary teach for dual degrees and teach across programs Dual

majors provide opportunities for interdisciplinary training of graduate students and foster faculty

collaboration. Michigan State with 11 established dual significant doctoral degrees is a good example.

• The BIG10 Academic Alliance provides shared courses across all member schools of the BIG 10

courses are shared, and credits count across institutions. In these partnerships with other universities

both students and faculty have enabled development and mentoring. Do the SEC schools provide the

same? The SEC schools do not provide the equal opportunities.

• Michigan Intercollegiate Graduate Studies provides students in good standing to take graduate courses at

other Michigan schools.

• Vanderbilt Interdisciplinary Research Opportunities. Students work on varied research projects that

contribute to the university culture of teamwork and innovation. Currently, they have five

interdisciplinary research opportunities including material science, humanities, and public policy

Innovation. This includes maker pods that promote innovation.

• The University of North Carolina also has a "maker-in-residence" program that brings expert makers to

campus for an extended period.

• The Faber Center at the University of South Carolina which is helping to develop USC's

entrepreneurship program to encourage and prepare our students to take their entrepreneurial skills into

the new global economy.

37

Growth + Innovation | Job Growth

United States: Job and Academic Degree Key Points

Projected growth US Workforce (2014-2024)1

• 12,000 new jobs for those with doctoral or professional degrees

• 13,000 new jobs for those with master degrees

US Degree Goals

In 2016, 75.2% of first-year college students stated that they intended to earn a graduate or professional

degree.2

Trends in US graduate enrollment – Fall 2015

The table below shows first-time graduate enrollment by broad field and degree level for the US during

fall term of 2015.3

Doctoral Master/Other* Total

Broad Field N % N % N

Physical and Earth Sciences 6,763 60.2 4,474 39.8 11,231

Biological and Agricultural

Sciences

7,839 36.4 13,689 63.6 21,528

Arts and Humanities 5,732 21.1 21,402 78.9 26,997

Public Administration and

Services

912 3.3 27,081 96.7 27,993

Other Fields 2,651 7.9 31,081 92.1 33,727

Mathematics and Computer

Sciences

4,555 13.3 29,793 86.7 34,348

Social and Behavioral Sciences 9,935 26.7 27,258 73.3 37,209

Engineering 9,474 20.6 36,436 79.4 45,910

Health Sciences 12,539 19.8 50,770 80.2 63,309

Education 10,517 13.6 66,817 86.4 77,342

Business 4,187 5.3 75,084 94.7 79,010

Total 83,099 16.4 424,811 83.6 506,927

*Includes first-time enrollment in graduate-level certificate and education specialist

programs.

Notes: Because not all institutions responded to all items, details may not sum to

totals. Percentages are based on the total of known degree levels.

In 2015 in the US, health science new graduate students were ranked third highest, both overall and in

master/other programs, behind business and education. In 2015, there were more new health science

doctoral students than in any other field. Between 2014-15, the largest increases in applications were

observed for engineering, health sciences, and mathematics and computer sciences (data not shown).

Kentucky: Job and Academic Degree Key Points

Doctorate & Professional Degrees in Kentucky4

• Proportionally more professional and doctorate degrees in medicine, business, and law are awarded in

KY than in the US.

• This appropriately reflects the labor market in KY vs. the US.

Labor Market Share in Kentucky: Medicine and Financial Services4

38

• For graduate degree holders, medicine and financial services constitute a higher share of the labor

market in KY vs. US market.

• Graduate programs must be tailored to prepare graduates for these industries with high demand.

Valued Skill Sets in Kentucky4

• KY graduate degree holders, especially at the master level, are more likely to emphasize managerial

skills vs. US market. Therefore, we must prepare students, especially in master programs, with

leadership and management skills.

• Those with doctoral degrees are more likely to need research and teaching skills.

PhDs Inside vs. Outside the Academy in Kentucky4

• Two-thirds of job postings for PhDs in Kentucky are for positions outside of academia.

• We need to have professional guidance and mentorship to help Ph.D. graduates achieve desired

outcomes both inside and outside academia.

Master-Degree Jobs in Kentucky4

• In 2016, there were 17,000 job postings for candidates with a master degree in KY.

• Growth in positions for individuals with a master degree in KY outpaced US trend.

• Growth since 2011 (180%) is highest in KY vs. other states in the region.

Kentucky’s Top Employing Industries4

• In KY, 49.4 % of all jobs stem from three industries:

o General medical & surgical hospitals (21.0%)

o Colleges, universities and professional schools (15.9%)

o Insurance (12.5%)

• Most positions in above categories require degrees in medicine and business.

• Other top employers were in the allied health fields:

o Offices of other health practitioners (4.1%)

o Home health care services (2.2%)

o Nursing care facilities (2.0%)

o Health and personal care stores (1.8%)

o Pharmaceutical and medical manufacturing (1.3%)

o Offices of physicians and dentists (2.0%)

o Total for allied health professions = 13.4%

• Combined, these healthcare industry employers constitute 62.8% of the positions for graduate degree

holders in Kentucky.

• Elementary and secondary schools (0.9%) and architectural, engineering and related service (1.0%)

industries were not well represented by graduate degree holders in Kentucky.

Kentucky’s Top Occupations4

• The top five occupations for graduate degree holders in KY are:

o Registered nurse (7.3%)

o College professor (5%)

o Physical therapist (4%)

o Physician (3.7%)

o Nurse practitioner (3.1%)

• Compared to the US, Kentucky has low demand for software developers/engineers (2.7% vs. 5.3% in

the US).

39

Sources

1. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

2. UCLA, Higher Education Research Institute: National Norms Fall 2016

3. CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees

4. Report of Innovative Approaches to Graduate Education and Marketplace Characteristics. Prepared by Chuck

Reed, Senior Vice President for Client Services (chuck.reed@stamats.com) and Grant DeRoo, Research

Consultant (grant.deroo@stamats.com). January 10, 2017

Growth + Innovation | Student Perspectives

Student Debt Report National

Americans are more burdened by student loan debt than ever. There is $1.44 trillion in total U.S. student loan

debt. 44.2 million Americans with student loan debt. The student loan delinquency rate is 11.2% (90+ days

delinquent or by default). And the average monthly student loan payment (for borrower aged 20 to 30 years) is

$351.

Figure 4. Student Loan Debt

International Student Perspectives

Federal loans are not available to international students, and international students have to use non-federal loans

if needed. I did not find the international student data of all majors, but I found the national and international

students’ debt for top 30 US MBA programs as below.

40

Figure 5. Student Debt for top 30 United State MBA Programs.

Graduate Student Loan Debt

40% of the overall student loan debt total is accounted for by graduate borrowers. ($563 billion). Six graduate

programs account for 61.8% of graduate student loan debt.

Figure 6. Student Debt for top 30 United State MBA Programs (Source: Trends in Student Aid 2014 from The

College Board. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study).

Kentucky Student Loan Debt

A report from the U.S. Department of Education shows that 16.3 percent of Kentuckians with student loan debt

have defaulted on their loans in the last three years, which ranks as the third-highest percentage in the country.

While Kentucky’s default rate decreased by 1 percent over the past year, it still is well above the national

average of 11.8 percent.

41

Figure 7. Kentucky Student Loan Debt (Source: Kentucky Center for Economic Policy, U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard)

42

3.2 INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUNDING

Committee members

Mark Coyne and Mark Lauersdorf (Co-Chairs), Zach Hilt, Beth Rous, Rachel Shane, Valerie Stevens, and Ann

Vail

Overall recommendation:

The committee recommends that graduate education at the University of Kentucky be given increased

infrastructural resources and be housed in a strong, centralized, independent academic College. Robust

infrastructural investment in graduate education enhances all aspects of the university, including undergraduate

education and all levels of research. Centralized stewardship of graduate education increases the potential for

innovation with a campus-wide scale and scope.

A centralized, independent infrastructure should strengthen the following focus areas: administration,

consistency and equity among programs, student tracking and program support, innovation and growth in

graduate education and research, interdisciplinary and special programs, connecting research and instruction,

recruitment of high-quality and diverse students, career and professional development, and graduate student

support services. This recommendation for an enhanced, centralized, independent infrastructure is elaborated in

this document in four key sections: organizational infrastructure, physical infrastructure, instructional and

research infrastructure, and financial infrastructure.

———————————————————————————————————

1) Organizational Infrastructure

Goal: Create a centralized and independent Graduate College, led by a strong, full-time Dean.

Rationale: The Graduate College and its Dean must be able to advocate strongly for the resources and

attention required to elevate all graduate programs to a level commensurate with UK’s other

achievements and reputation. For that to happen the Dean of the Graduate College must be on

equal footing with other college deans and have the appropriate support to carry out the mission of

graduate education and research, and to solicit and use funds in support of graduate initiatives.

Implementation strategies:

a) Hire a full-time Dean of the Graduate College and make the standing of the Graduate Dean equal to the

deans of the colleges.

– Provides a strong advocate for graduate education across campus, from a position dedicated to the

purpose of promoting graduate education and research in all areas of university activity.

b) Utilize faculty governance structures to support the Graduate Dean, similar to structures in other colleges

(e.g., an executive faculty council, standing and ad hoc committees on significant issues, etc.).

– The graduate faculty, as the on-the-ground participants, should have direct input into decisions affecting

graduate education and research across campus.

– Create new committees or reconfigure the function and charge of existing committees (Graduate Council;

Senate Research and Graduate Education Committee) to support this goal.

c) Staff the Graduate College adequately to perform its core administrative functions and the enhanced

programming and increased activities required to provide quality graduate education to prepare graduates for

success in their professional lives.

43

– A strong central staffing of graduate education provides core support for common services and resources,

reducing unnecessary duplication and redundancy in individual campus units.

– Staffing for graduate education must be able to support the entire graduate-student experience from

initial recruitment through to graduate career services and alumni relations.

– Staffing for graduate education must be able to support the entire range of graduate students and

programs, providing services and resources for both on- and off-campus students, from post-bac to post-

doc, participating in both campus-based and distance/online programs.

d) Coordinate robust data collection and management for graduate education and research centrally in the

Graduate College (in the same way that data collection and management is centrally coordinated for

undergraduate education) and include mechanisms to make data transparently available to all stakeholders.

– Provides single-point aggregation of analytic information for completeness and consistency in timing and

content of data collection.

– Allows common baseline data to be gathered on behalf of all programs, while also facilitating individual

program requests for regular monitoring of data specific to their fields to be gathered alongside the

baseline data.

– Provides a basis for equity in decisions affecting graduate education across campus (see other areas

below where this is significant).

– Provides a mechanism for the Graduate College to perform self-evaluation to measure the efficiency and

effectiveness of its programs and to assess its progress in pursuing the mission of graduate education and

research.

e) Make the Graduate College the lead unit for promotion and coordination of exploratory and interdisciplinary

graduate-level activities initiated directly by the faculty across all colleges.

– Provides a location for faculty from diverse units across campus to bring ideas for graduate-level

instructional, research, and service programs that cut across traditional disciplinary and administrative

units and divisions.

– Acts as lead advocate for the implementation of regulations, guidelines, mechanisms, and procedures that

promote and encourage graduate-level instruction, research, and service across traditional disciplinary

and administrative units and divisions.

f) Create official points of collaboration and partnership between the Graduate College and the Office of the

Vice President for Research.

– Enables the meaningful integration of the instructional and research missions in graduate training.

– Solidifies connections between graduate students and post-doctoral scholars at UK, providing post-

doctoral scholars with an academic home.

Assessment metrics:

a) Creation of Graduate College organizational structure.

b) Appointment of full-time Dean of the Graduate College.

c) Creation of faculty governance structures in support of the Graduate College and its mission.

d) Staffing commensurate with peer institutions that have successful graduate colleges.

e) Appointment of staff specifically tasked with data collection and management for graduate education and

research.

f) Increase in the number and funding of clear interdisciplinary proposals and activities.

g) Implementation of formal ties between the Graduate College and the Office of the VPR.

Resources needed:

44

a) Equitable allocation of F&A from research proposals, graduate student tuition, local, state, and federal

student support to the mission of the Graduate College.

———————————————————————————————————

2) Physical Infrastructure

Goal: Construct or repurpose one or more physical structures as a Graduate Center to house the

Graduate College in its entirety.

Rationale: A physical space combining graduate programs, staff, faculty, and students builds community and

creates engagement among graduate students and postdoctoral fellows while also providing

necessary services. Development of Graduate Centers is a national trend. A Graduate Center serves

as a hub of activity and leadership in the dual areas of graduate student academic success and

professional development, and it provides a natural locus for synergistic activity in graduate

education and research across colleges and disciplines. The development of a greater sense of

community among graduate students improves alumni engagement with and support for the

multifaceted mission of graduate education at UK.

Implementation strategies:

a) Place the Graduate Center in a prominent campus location to provide a visible locus for all aspects of

graduate education.

– Provides increased visibility and accessibility to the Graduate College and the full range of programs and

services of graduate education.

b) Include in the Graduate Center ample meeting and work spaces for both physical and virtual gatherings.

– Facilitates formal and informal interaction among academic and professional graduate students and

postdoctoral fellows from across campus, graduate students off-campus, and graduate students and

faculty wherever they are located, to foster scholarly intersections, collaborative projects, and

interdisciplinary and international exchange.

– Such spaces, with appropriate physical and technological infrastructure, would accommodate:

.....interdisciplinary curricular programming.

.....professional development courses and seminars.

.....video-conferencing with off-campus students and scholars.

.....incubator space for collaborative research, scholarship, creative activity.

.....informal meetings / encounters for collaborative work.

.....meetings for administration and governance of graduate education.

c) House dedicated graduate-student career services in the Graduate Center.

– Addresses the specific employment context of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows faced with the

increasing need to parlay their academic credentials into non-academic career tracks.

– Moves career readiness to a central position in graduate education, as the doctoral job market has

increasingly shifted away from the professoriate to careers beyond the academy.

d) Provide graduate-student community services, including dedicated services for off-campus / distance

graduate students and international graduate students, in the Graduate Center.

– Supports the unique needs and lifestyles of the graduate student community as stakeholders in the

university’s teaching and research mission, but with needs that are unique to their graduate student

status.

– Increases student retention, improves graduate degree completion rates, and shortens time to degree.

e) House both the Graduate College administration and the Graduate Student Congress within the Graduate

45

Center.

– Encourages Graduate College collaboration with graduate student leadership to understand and meet the

needs of graduate students.

Assessment metrics:

a) Consolidation of the Graduate College into one or more centrally located facilities.

b) Equipping of the facilities to perform a broad range of functions serving the post-bac, academic and

professional graduate, and postdoctoral constituencies both on- and off-campus.

c) Creation of a graduate and postdoctoral career center housed in the Graduate College.

d) Staffing commensurate with benchmark institutions that have successful graduate centers and the services

they provided.

Resources needed:

a) Equitable allocation of F&A from research proposals, graduate student tuition, local, state, and federal

student support to the mission of the Graduate College.

b) Engaged fund-raising by the Graduate College Dean to identify donors for named buildings.

———————————————————————————————————

3) Instructional and Research Infrastructure

Goal: Create an instructional and research environment that can work nimbly and innovatively to meet

the needs of a diverse domestic and international student body in a changing global context.

Rationale: The changing face of higher education nationally and internationally demands that the Graduate

College prepare students and assist faculty to address new combinations of knowledge and skills,

new models of instruction, new modes of instructional delivery, and new types of credentialing.

Increasing expectations of hands-on experiential learning demand a stronger commitment to

research and a tighter integration of research and instruction. Students are increasingly unlikely to

be on-campus residents or even local residents. A minority will pursue purely academic careers;

increasing numbers will pursue graduate education as a component of continuing education in

which the goals are preparation, credentialing, and certification for professional advancement

rather than traditional degrees.

Implementation strategies:

a) Build nimbleness and agility into the processes and procedures for creating new instructional offerings

(courses, programs, certificates, etc.).

– Facilitate the ability of campus academic units (programs and departments) to pursue innovation and

interdisciplinarity in graduate student training in response to academic and societal advances.

b) Create mechanisms and pathways for innovation and interdisciplinarity to become a normal established part

of the instructional and research infrastructure.

– Reconceptualize the faculty “distribution of effort (DOE)” model to encourage DOE profiles that make

innovation and collaboration a standard part of faculty load configurations.

– Create faculty recognition and rewards mechanisms (in the various professional review processes) that

incentivize instruction and research in exploratory, collaborative, and other “non-traditional” directions.

– Implement budgetary structures that discourage territorial and protectionist thinking and that incentivize

administrators to allow and encourage faculty to collaborate beyond their salary- and tenure-homes.

46

c) Expand the capacity of graduate education to reach remote constituents by investing in robust physical and

technical infrastructures for distance education and outreach, available to all campus academic units.

– Enhances UK’s ability to provide access to graduate education to a broader and more diverse spectrum

of the population and to keep pace with the changing dynamics of higher education in today’s world.

d) Review the current differences in the processes, procedures, policies, rules, regulations, and administrative

structures that are in place for the various categories of post-baccalaureate students (post-bac, graduate

“academic”, graduate “professional”, post-doc) and maximize points of commonality between the student

types.

– Clarification of student profiles and alignment of commonalities will allow for enhanced opportunities for

innovative and collaborative interaction among the entire post-baccalaureate student population.

– An updated assessment of the different needs of different student and program profiles will allow for

better alignment with and distribution of resources across all campus programs and their students.

– Full understanding of the various student and program profiles will allow for optimal implementation of

new modes and directions of graduate training.

e) Enable the Graduate College to effectively coordinate and assist academic units (programs and departments)

in providing graduate students with the professional skill sets required by social and workplace trends.

– Provides an infrastructure for training in professional skills that are common across the disciplines and

assistance in focusing already acquired transferable skills for the broad range of career opportunities

open to graduate degree holders in today’s society.

– Facilitates the sharing of best practices in professional skills training among programs that develop

discipline-specific training.

– Enhancements in this area might include: coordinating existing training across multiple units; creation of

certificates in professional skills; offering professional training in an online setting; etc.

f) Increase the ability of the Graduate College to prepare students for their work at UK.

– Provide a common baseline of training, as possible, for graduate students performing roles as research,

teaching, and administrative assistants, thereby reducing unnecessary duplication and redundancy in

individual campus units.

– Facilitate sharing best practices in graduate assistant training among programs that develop discipline-

specific training.

– Coordinate training specific to international students to integrate them into the culture and practices of

graduate assistant positions in the educational context of UK as a Land Grant institution.

g) Review the relationship between the Office of the Vice President for Research and the Graduate College.

– The Graduate College could be the unifying voice concerning the value of research, scholarship, and

creative activity in graduate education.

– We must elevate the position of research, scholarship, and creative activity in graduate training as an

essential component in understanding the world in different ways and thus a critical component in

providing our students with career flexibility in the modern professional environment.

– Capitalize on the individual and combined strengths of the Office of the VPR and the Graduate College,

assigning clear charges and responsibilities to each as advocates for research, scholarship, and creative

activity at all levels.

h) Enhance the web presence of the Graduate College, allowing it to operate as a main point of reference for

graduate and professional education, to serve current students and to recruit potential students.

– For a national and international clientele the Graduate College web presence should highlight the unique

nature and success of the graduate and professional programs while conveying the current status of their

programs and graduates.

– For current students the Graduate College web presence should provide a complete source of information

on programs and their requirements and configurations, as well as access to online services of the

47

Graduate College.

Assessment metrics:

a) Substantial increase in and diversity of proposals for new programs.

b) Reduction in time between proposing and implementing new programs.

c) Substantial increase in the number of faculty engaged in new, exploratory directions of instruction and

research.

d) Substantial increase in the number of students served through distance technologies and the number of

academic units offering such training at-a-distance.

e) Completed review of program and student profiles across the post-baccalaureate spectrum (post-bac,

graduate “academic”, graduate “professional”, post-doc).

f) Identify and codify graduate training programs for student-based work at UK within model programs or

within the Graduate College.

g) Identify and codify graduate training programs for transferable skills within model programs or within the

Graduate College.

h) Completed review of the relationship between the Graduate College and the Office of the VPR and

implementation of formal ties between the Graduate College and the Office of the VPR in identified areas of

synergy.

i )Substantial increase in the visibility and traffic on the Graduate College website.

Resources needed:

a) Equitable allocation of F&A from research proposals, graduate student tuition, local, state, and federal

student support to the mission of the Graduate College.

b) Enhanced staffing for online instruction support at the University level.

c) Investment in IT for online delivery at the University level.

d) Coordinated distribution of funding to programs with model training initiatives.

e) Appointment of full-time webmaster for the Graduate College.

———————————————————————————————————

4) Financial Infrastructure

Goal: Create capacity and mechanisms to fund graduate education at a level and functionality that

allows for growth in areas of existing strength and encourages innovative development of new

areas of excellence.

Rationale: In the absence of a stable, predictable funding stream commensurate with the mission of the

research mission of the University it is impossible to sustain effective graduate education. The

Graduate College must have the financial resources in place to allow its basic functions to continue,

the knowledge of potential growth in funding to anticipate changes in staffing and investment, and

the capacity to solicit and use extramural funding of its own volition.

Implementation strategies:

a) Create greater transparency regarding the funding sources for graduate education.

– Provides the campus community with a full picture of the possibilities and constraints for growth and

innovation in graduate education.

48

b) Create greater transparency regarding the mechanisms and parameters for allocation and distribution of the

financial resources for graduate education.

– Provides the various constituencies involved in graduate education the opportunity to position their units

and programs appropriately for sharing in the available financial resources.

– Tracks and monitors the use of funds distributed to college units for graduate education.

c) Fund the Graduate College with hard dollars commensurate with the enhanced programming required to

perform its expanded roles.

– Ensures long-term stability and provides a solid basis for growth and innovation in graduate education

and research.

d) Fund full-time permanent positions in all key areas of the Graduate College in full support of graduate

education.

– Provides a fixed infrastructure of personnel to ensure the smooth functioning of all aspects of the

graduate education and research mission.

e) Utilize an overall budgetary model that discourages territorial and protectionist thinking within academic and

research units and that incentivizes cross-campus collaboration and resource sharing.

– Encourages administrators to welcome innovation and collaboration that involves units “outside their

walls.”

– Allows faculty to work creatively in exploring new pathways of research and instruction.

– Discourages costly and inefficient duplication of effort and redundancy of programs and infrastructures

across colleges and programs.

f) Make concerted efforts at philanthropy specific to the Graduate College that will enable it to develop

endowed funds for initiatives in graduate education and research.

– Creates a financial resource specifically dedicated to furthering graduate education and research.

g) Finance graduate student activities (through the Graduate Student Congress) with a fair and consistent

apportionment of the fees paid and tuition dollars brought in by graduate students.

– Creates a financial resource available to and administered by graduate and professional students to

further graduate-student-led initiatives in support of their education and research.

Assessment metrics:

a) Enhanced capacity for members of the UK community to monitor the funding conditions and financial status

of the Graduate College.

b) Increased information on and transparency in the allocation and distribution of funds for graduate education.

c) Full-time staffing of the Graduate College commensurate with peer institutions that have successful graduate

colleges.

d) Changes in the overall budgetary model that allocates financial resources for graduate education.

e) Growth in an identified endowment dedicated to the Graduate College.

f) Fixed apportionment of graduate tuition dollars to graduate student support.

Resources needed:

a) Equitable allocation of F&A from research proposals, graduate student tuition, local, state, and federal

student support to the mission of the Graduate College.

b) Additional staffing at the University and College levels to increase financial transparency.

c) A fair and consistent fraction of tuition dollars commensurate with the allocation currently used for

undergraduate tuition dollars explicitly designate for graduate student support.

49

3.3 GRADUATE STUDENT EXPERIENCE

Committee members

Kaylynne Glover and Dave Puleo (Co-Chairs), Mark Kornbluh, Donna Kwon, Suraj Chaudhary, and Beth Rous

Graduate Student Experience

The Graduate Student Experience subcommittee was tasked with devising recommendations to improve the

quality of life of all graduate students[1] at UK, including but not limited: student funding, tuition waivers,

workloads, support for families, health insurance, housing, graduate student autonomy, career support,

professional development, mentorship relations and flexibility and interdisciplinary access. This document was

designed to take into consideration the wide range of graduate students at UK, including those that are

postdoctoral, full-time, part-time, traditional, non-traditional, as well as those participating in coursework on

campus and online. The goals and recommendations of this committee addresses all three charges of the Blue

Ribbon Panel, namely, (1) Graduate Student experience while at UK/in graduate school, (2) preparation of

students for various careers after leaving UK, and (3) fostering interdisciplinary efforts.

In this report, "Graduate Students" reflects both graduate students and postdoctoral students and emphasizes

issues distinct to both of them as appropriate. We include postdoctoral students in this report because their

needs are not currently met as either employees or as students, and several of the recommendations for graduate

students can serve the postdoctoral population as well.

Recommendations: The subcommittee has devised four general recommendations. We present possible

strategies to implementing the recommendations that could be adopted at university, college, department,

program, and individual levels.

Overarching Goal #1: Improve funding and workload expectations for graduate assistants (TA, GA, RA)

Rationale:

According to the graduate survey conducted in Spring 2017 and the GSC survey report completed in February

of 2017, one of the most urgent concerns for graduate students is stipend compensation. Benchmark research

indicates UK’s stipends in many departments are lower than peer institutions which, based on publicly available

data, often maintain minimum stipends set by the Central Administration. Forty-four percent of these

institutions have set minimum academic stipends for half-time graduate assistants at or above $18,000, while all

programs (except master’s students at UNC – Chapel Hill) receive a minimum of $15,000. More notably,

current stipends at UK often are set below a living wage (http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/21067) and thus do

not cover basic costs of living in Lexington, KY, with some stipends set at levels lower than the poverty level.

Poor financial compensation has many rippling effects for graduate students. Recruitment efforts are negatively

impacted as students choose to attend schools with higher stipends with comparable living costs. Students who

do choose to attend UK must often take on additional jobs outside of the university, although this is contrary to

UK policy, to compensate for their pay, thereby decreasing their effectiveness as students, teachers, and

researchers. As a result, their stress, mental health, and time to degree are all negatively impacted.

Tactics:

A. Increase minimum stipends. An achievable minimum stipend for graduate assistants consistent with

the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill sets master’s level stipends at $11,000 and doctoral level

stipends at $15,000. The costs of health insurance should be provided in addition to the stipend.

50

Monitoring stipend offered at benchmarks would allow UK to increase stipends according to

programmatic and university standards.

B. Ensure all qualifying graduate assistants have tuition scholarships. All qualifying graduate

assistants should receive full tuition waivers. For programs who do not provide tuition waivers past the

qualifying exam, assistance should be provided to assist with the 2 credits per semester of continuous

enrollment for doctoral candidates in post-qualifying status.

C. Re-assess the number of years funded as a graduate assistant. Data indicate the number of years of

GA funding at UK differs considerably across programs. We recommend programs compare their years

of funding caps to disciplinary norms and re-assess to determine if changes are warranted to ensure

adequate support to graduate students. Programs should be committed to their graduate students for the

duration required to complete their degree, potentially rearranging their programs to ensure their

students can complete their programs in the amount of time funded. One possible solution may be that

programs with longer times-to-degree consider capping funding after a specific number of years (e.g. 6

years) and thus shift funds spent in later years to earlier years, decreasing time to degree while

increasing stipends, thereby increasing efficiency and quality of life.

D. Do not exceed workload appointments. Programs should evaluate workloads of the graduate assistants

to ensure they match the FTE appointment and that they are comparable to similar institutions in their

fields. Strategies might include weekly reports of hours worked to track workload.

Metrics:

• Graduate student funding, national status, and family situation should be tracked, monitored, and

compared against benchmarks, the cost of living, and graduate student satisfactions surveys (potentially

gathered and analyzed by an Evaluation, Assessment, and Quality committee)

• Programs should be monitored for years funded and time to degree and compared against disciplinary

norms.

• Workloads should be monitored to ensure they match FTE appointments and disciplinary standards.

Resources Needed:

A. Resources to conduct a review of TA stipends and workloads at the college-level. A thorough

review should be conducted by each college reporting the numbers of TAs, GAs, RAs per department as

well as their stipend levels. If stipend levels fall below the suggested minimum suggested above

(Tactics, A) then a proposal should be made as to how the College will bring the stipends up to these

minimums. If this cannot not be done without threatening the sustainability of a program, then it should

be determined how much more funding is needed. This review should also assess the workloads of

existing positions. If workloads are determined to be inequitable, suggestions should be made to remedy

them within the college.

B. Develop or bolster an existing philanthropic support for graduate student funding. Some programs

will need additional recurring funding, especially small programs that cannot afford to cut TA lines.

Endowment monies could be used to provide the necessary recurring funding.

C. Develop a more diverse array of graduate fellowship awards, especially for the dissertation

research and writing completion stages. These should be administered and publicized at the

appropriate levels (colleges and departments) and should be cover tuition, health insurance, and a

generous stipend (approximately $20,000). These would provide invaluable support for those in

programs that do not provide as many years of funding. In addition, an award like this would be

51

prestigious and would enhance a student’s CV and provide positive exposure for the University of

Kentucky’s graduate school.

D. Reform the way that tuition scholarships are handled by the budgeting process at UK. Currently,

tuition scholarships are treated as real costs to the Graduate School, despite the fact that the revenue side

of the ledger completely offsets these scholarships. Even though every GA tuition scholarship awarded

results in an equal amount of tuition to the University, tuition scholarships are severely limited in the

budgeting process. (GA stipend awards are real costs to the University, but scholarships are not). Thus,

the current budgeting process makes it is extremely difficult to increase the number of scholarships or

move them around. This greatly limits the ability of colleges and departments to innovate in graduate

education and adjust programs to changing circumstances.

Overarching Goal #2: Bolster comprehensive support for students

Rationale:

Improving support structures for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars can improve recruitment and

increase morale and productivity. The current support provided is insufficient in several ways.

Lack of affordable graduate housing. Graduate student housing is available both to graduate and professional

students with no distinction between their distinct needs and financial situations. Most graduate students not

only live on significantly less income (as they are discouraged from taking out student loans), they frequently

work more variable hours and need to be close to campus. International students are especially vulnerable as

they cannot work outside the University to supplement their income. While the University recently created new

housing for graduate and professional students at the University Flats, the cost is prohibitive to many students

outside professional programs, due to current low stipend levels for many graduate students.

Lack of comprehensive healthcare coverage. Several coverage gaps exist in the current health care package

offered to graduate students. First, unlike our benchmark institutions, graduate students lack coverage for dental

and vision (outside temporary access to dental services offered through a special program sponsored by the

College of Dental). Coverage for other services, including x-rays and physical therapy, is also absent. Second,

graduate students most often access health care coverage through the Student Health Clinic; however, this

access is limited to regular weekday hours, resulting in no access to covered health care in the evenings and on

weekends. Students may choose to use emergency room services (for which they are billed if the situation is not

deemed a true emergency by the health insurance company) or pay full costs to utilize an Urgent Care Center

not covered by their health insurance. Third, there is currently a one-day gap between yearly coverage during

which time students are not covered, requiring coordination on the part of students to ensure they avoid paying

full cost for medical services and medications during this lapse. Fourth, students have reported a lack of

communication between student health insurance and the UK hospital, resulting in students being billed for

services that should be covered, requiring a lengthy and stressful appeals process.

Lack of affordable child care and support for graduate students with children. UK provides little dedicated

support for students with children. Eighty-two percent of benchmark universities offer financial aid for students

with children to help cover costs of child care. At UK, financial aid offered for child care services comes from a

limited number of highly competitive Child Care Grants offered by the Student Government Association (SGA)

paid for by student fees. Sixty-four percent of benchmark universities provide on-site child care reserved for

university students and employees, often with sliding scale rates to accommodate low-income students.

Additionally, several universities offer specialty services including free child care during exam weeks, sick-

child or emergency backup care, evening care, and out-of-town care for conference and other school-related

events. In addition, several also provide family-friendly facilities, including kid-friendly study spaces and

centers dedicated to student parents and families.

52

Lack of official graduate student representation. University-recognized Graduate Student Organizations with

financial and legislative authority independent of undergraduate students are supported in 73% of our

benchmark institutions. These organizations meet regularly with Central Administration to discuss the needs of

graduate students, serve as voting members on their Boards of Trustees, and all decisions on campus concerning

graduate students are approved through these organizations. Funding for these organizations comes from

graduate student fees directed to the Graduate Student Organization instead of the SGA or the Student Activities

Board (SAB). In comparison, UK’s Graduate Student Congress (GSC) has no autonomy. While graduate

students comprise approximately 15% of the fee-paying student body, there is no guarantee that any SGA or

SAB position is held by a graduate student or that the GSC will receive any dedicated funds to meet the needs

of graduate students. As a result, the needs of graduate students are not being met by many student-sponsored

events on campus (see STAMATS report). In the event a university position on campus is reserved for graduate

students, there is no distinction between professional and graduate students, including positions on the Student

Fee Allocation Committee. While professional and graduate students have many things in common, their needs

are dramatically different and graduate students outnumber professional students nearly two to one, and there is

no coordination between professional and graduate students to ensure that these representatives are aware of or

advocating for graduate students on campus.

Inadequate parental and disability leave policies. Graduate students are provided a maximum of two-weeks

paid leave after the birth or adoption of a child and up to six weeks unpaid leave. In comparison, 64% of

benchmarks guarantee full pay and benefits for at least 6 weeks following childbirth and often at least 2 weeks

following adoption, with several extending time-to-degree requirements with the addition of each family

member.

Increased Mental Health Concerns. The number of graduate students at risks for mental health disorders, such

as depression and anxiety, is exponentially increasing. Graduate students in the United States are faced with a

number of challenges: from reconciling intense academic schedules with demanding teaching positions, to

dealing with financial insecurity and a lack of employment prospects. UC Berkeley surveyed its graduate

population in 2014, finding that 47% of PhD students and 37% of master’s and professional students scored as

depressed. Approximately half of those reporting problems considered seeking help through the university-

sponsored mental health services, but only 35% took action in this sense. The study also identified vulnerable

populations, including LGBTQ students and minorities. Arts and Humanities recorded a disproportionate

number of cases, with 64% of the respondents reporting symptoms of depression. In 2012, a different Berkeley

study found that 50% of self-reported suicide attempts amongst graduate students were in STEM fields.

Students with teaching or research assistantships who manifest mental health issues pose dilemmas for

faculty/departments as their health may impact teaching or research responsibilities. Responding to students

with mental health problems requires careful and ethical consideration, as removing a student who manifests

problems from a position would affect the student’s financial welfare as well as removing access to mental

health treatment.

Tactics:

A. Maintain and improve access to affordable housing for graduate students: In order to make housing

affordable, both the minimum and the average stipend of funded graduate students should be taken into

consideration when determining housing prices. Special attention should be paid to international

students who are more limited in sources of income and students with families who must take the needs

of dependents into consideration.

B. Close healthcare loopholes: We recommend closing the gaps in health care coverage as well as

expanding coverage to include vision and dental care, the latter either through expansion of the current

dental program or through other means. We also recommend partnering with an Urgent Care facility

53

near campus to provide students with non-emergency coverage outside of the hours of the Student Clinic

without non-covered expense. We recommend increasing advocacy efforts for graduate student health

coverage that actively solicits information on the current quality of coverage, helps students navigate

health coverage problems, and works with administration to cover gaps in coverage.

C. Child care: A range of child care support services should be explored and implemented including:

a. Subsidies for students needing help pay the cost of child care. The maximum amount of annual

subsidies for child care should be based on the age of the child and total household income.

b. Provide financial support to the Early Childhood Lab so they can set aside a percentage of slots

for children of graduate students at a subsidized rate.

c. Provide a dedicated parent/child space in the new Student Center to support lactation needs of

mothers, child-centered activities, and parental support and networking.

d. Private spaces for lactation needs should be expanded for faculty, staff and students throughout

the campus.

e. Create a committee to plan an organized system of part-time child care to support graduate

students’ needs.

f. Make on-campus services and workshops available online to support online and off-campus

students, as well as those with family responsibilities that impede coming to campus.

g. Partnering with students and faculty in Education programs to provide experience for students in

addition to providing child care services.

D. Graduate Student Government Autonomy: Ensure the Graduate Student Congress has legislative

authority and financial independence and establish the Congress as an official organization within the

Graduate School. Graduate student government and activity fees should be allocated proportionally to

meet the unique needs of graduate students through the GSC. University positions designated for

“graduate students” should ensure proportional equity among the graduate student population.

E. Parental/Disability Leave: Leave for funded graduate students (TA, GA, RA) should be brought up to

the standards for UK faculty and staff and consistent with benchmark institutions at 6 weeks leave with

full pay and benefits. Consideration should be given to allow graduate students to opt into voluntary

short-term disability leave programs.

F. Graduate Student Mental Health: While the University of Kentucky has shown a growing

commitment to student mental health by increasing the number of counselors and therapists, many

graduate students continue to not seek professional help, often due to social stigma, fears of inadequacy,

and concerns of running into students that they teach while seeking services. Promoting an open

atmosphere that removes stigmas on mental health would allow students to seek help without fear, and

departments, advisers, administrators, and mental health specialists should encourage dialogue that is

realistic and honest about the unique pressures and expectations of graduate school. Additionally,

strengthening networks of support across different graduate student populations can decrease social

isolation and improve mental health. A disability fund or similar mechanism would provide support to

bridge teaching and research assistants unable to fulfill classroom or laboratory responsibilities until

they are able to return to duty.

Metrics:

A. Housing: Graduate student satisfaction surveys need to be paired with University records that track

graduate student housing costs, stipends, family situations, national status, and the cost of living.

Affordable and accessible University housing needs to be available for all (1) students with lower

54

stipends, (2) students with families, and (3) international students. These students are less likely to be

able to afford additional costs for travel, utilities, and internet access that is associated with off-campus

housing. Additionally, international students are often unable to get access to housing off campus and

are also unable to work outside of their University positions and are therefore especially vulnerable.

B. Healthcare: Healthcare packages should be brought into alignment with those offered by Benchmark

programs, health care advocates need to be reaching out to students to assess and address their

healthcare needs, student satisfaction surveys should reflect a high satisfaction with health care

coverage.

C. Child care: Standards at benchmark programs and student satisfaction surveys should be paired with

University records that track graduate student housing costs, stipends, family situations, and the cost of

living. All graduate students with children should be able to afford child care accessible without a

vehicle and should be offered rates affordable on their stipends. Analyses should reveal that the progress

of students with families is not impeded by additional financial costs of child care or by family

emergencies (including illnesses) that prevent a student from being on campus. Student mothers who

choose to breastfeed should report that this decision does not come at a significant cost to time or

convenience.

D. Graduate Student Autonomy: The official status of the Graduate Student Congress should be brought

to the standards set at benchmark institutions, and graduate student surveys should report that student

feel that (1) they have a voice that is respected at the University, (2) that the University responds to the

needs voiced by graduate students, (3) that they have appropriate control over their own student fees,

and (4) that those fees are being used in accordance with the needs of graduate students.

E. Parental/Disability Leave: Policies at benchmark institutions should be used as a standard, and results

from graduate student satisfaction surveys should reflect that graduate students are not academically or

personally disadvantaged by choosing to have children.

F. Mental Health: Analyses of student satisfaction surveys and mental health resources reports on campus

should reveal that all graduate students with mental health problems are receiving adequate help and that

there are no significant barriers (social, physical, financial, or professional) to their seeking resources.

They should also report an environment that encourages open dialogue and accommodates for students

with diverse mental health needs, including options to opt-in to short-term disability leave or emergency

support when necessary.

Resources Needed:

A. Infrastructure support for the Graduate Student Congress within the Graduate School. This may

include offices localized together for better collaboration and fellowships offers for officers within the

Graduate Student Congress.

B. Family-Friendly Spaces and Services. This could include well-advertised and accessible family

resources, study rooms where children can play or be entertained while parents work, child and family-

friendly school-sponsored activities, and lounge areas where parents could network and provide mutual

support.

C. Graduate Student Lounge. Graduate students have many barriers to socialization and collaboration on

campus. As many graduate students teach and mentor undergraduates, finding areas where they can

socialize and collaborate with other graduate students without negatively impacting their relationship

with their own students is difficult. Often close in age to undergraduates and taking considerable effort

to develop professional barriers and demeanors, graduate students often avoid campus social events in

55

fear of running into their students at inappropriate times, and campus locations that are open for

socialization, collaboration, and mental health are also available to undergraduates. The creation and

fostering of separate graduate student socialization and leisure facilities and activities, including

physical spaces, intramural sports, and counseling resources would help foster a safe space for graduate

students to develop professionally and personally.

D. A Child Care Center: This center would be exclusively for UK employees and students and provide

subsidized or sliding tuition costs. In addition to providing full-day care, it should also offer temporary

(hourly), emergency, evening, and mildly sick care.

E. Expanded Online Support Services: This would provide more flexibility in reaching non-traditional,

online and off-campus students (Zoom, etc.).

F. Graduate Student Mental Health: Counseling locations should be opened and advertised exclusively

to graduate students to decrease the fear of a student seeking mental health services encountering a

student or mentee. Programs should be initiated on campus to decrease social stigma on mental health,

and faculty and staff should be trained on promoting good mental health. Facilities and activities should

be promoted to reduce isolation and increase social networks. Disability/bridge funding for teaching and

research assistants with mental health issues should be established.

Overarching Goal 3: Expand and improve professional development for graduate students

Rationale:

The results of the STAMATS Survey indicate both students and faculty recognize (1) the importance of

professional development and the need to prepare students for all career options and (2) a significant lack of

success in currently preparing students for non-academic career paths. A preference emerged for customizing

professional development within departments, specifically building it into the curriculum, perhaps through

courses and projects; however, many indicated a strong need for more workshops, conferences, and seminars

which may be more efficiently offered through a centralized unit, to either develop or communicate these

offerings more widely.

Results also indicated strong support for improved mentor relationships. Recognized as the most important

characteristic in effective graduate education by both students and faculty, only a small minority believes that

either their department or the university provides high quality training in mentoring. Improved mentoring was

second only to increased funding on suggested improvements to graduate education at both the university and

departmental level. Students generally feel relatively prepared for their teaching assignments, though resources

at CELT are not often advertised to graduate students who may need them.

A review of programs at benchmark institutions revealed most benchmark universities (72%) offered a career

center dedicated to graduate students either operated through the Graduate School or within a larger Career

Center. All others offered comprehensive online resources directing students to a variety of on and off-campus

professional development resources. All but one benchmark program offered resources to faculty, students,

and/or postdoctoral scholars on navigating and improving the mentor-mentee relationship; seventy-two percent

offer carefully-designed training or workshops for faculty or students on being effective mentors. Additionally,

most programs offered extensive training for graduate students, not only annual training for new teaching

assistants but also for returning TAs, TAs who would like additional assistance (including in-class

consultation), teaching workshops throughout the year, FERPA training, and diversity and implicit bias training,

with several offering certificates upon completion.

Tactics:

56

A. Best Practices in Mentorship Program: Faculty and students need access to a campus-wide

mentorship program that addresses mentor roles and responsibilities, establishing expectations and

effective communication, the structure of and power dynamics within mentoring, providing support for

diverse career paths, working with and encouraging students of diversity, and encouraging healthful

behaviors and relationships both in and out of school. These programs may take the form of courses,

seminars, workshops, or online training that would be available to mentors, mentees, and future mentors.

We encourage departments to provide incentives for participation, potentially through professional

development credit or as an elective; alternatively, departments may opt to develop their own specific

mentor training that targets program-specific programs.

B. Comprehensive Preparation and Support for Graduate Student Teaching: Expand graduate student

and postdoctoral scholar training, particularly TA training. All graduate students should have access to

CELT assistance year-round through workshops, seminars, and one-on-one consultations. Returning

TAs should be offered and encouraged to take refresher courses to fine-tune skills. Specific training in

FERPA and diversity and implicit bias training should be developed and offered through a variety of

formats (face-to-face and online) to ensure access to all students. We encourage the creation of

certificates where appropriate. Departments should be offered financial support to develop department-

specific training that addresses their unique needs.

Metrics:

A. Mentorship: Annual surveys of graduate students and faculty members should include a component on

mentorship. Data from this survey should highlight, among other things: (a) the availability of

mentorship programs, (b) awareness among students and faculty about offered mentorship resources, (c)

the effectiveness of mentorship programs in meeting graduate student needs, and (d) suggestions on how

the university and colleges can work on improving mentorship. Annually, available mentorship

resources should be compared to those at benchmark institutions. Programs and offerings should be

modified accordingly.

B. Graduate Student Teaching Support: Annual surveys of graduate students should include a

component on preparedness to teach. Questions should not only elicit feedback on what can be improved

in terms of providing adequate resources and training, but should also gather data on best practices in

this area. Resources available to new TAs should be compared, annually, to those available at

benchmark institutions, and modified accordingly.

Resources Needed:

A. The Creation of a Graduate Student Career Center: Graduate students and postdoctoral scholars and

fellows need access to comprehensive career center services that specialize in preparing students for a

wide range of career paths, both academic and nonacademic. This career center should work closely

with the Graduate School, whether they are housed within the Stuckert Career Center or within the

Graduate School itself, to provide customized support for graduate students and reduce duplication of

effort across colleges and departments. They should offer career advising, workshops, and seminars with

particular emphasis on developing transferable skills and networking skills. The center should work

closely with departments to help provide financial assistance and support for alumni and community

partners from diverse fields to come to campus and meet with students.

B. Development of a Faculty Guide to Mentoring Graduate Students: Faculty members need a

comprehensive guide that details the benefits of mentoring (to both students and faculty), defines a

57

mentor’s role and responsibilities, provides general guidelines for mentoring, and lists specific examples

of good mentorship. College-specific versions of the guide should be developed in order to address

mentoring needs that cannot be generalized. Annual feedback from graduate students on the perceived

effectiveness of available mentoring can inform future changes in the guide.

C. Bolster Support for Postdoctoral Students: Many postdoctoral students do not register for UK

employee resources, including health benefits, because benefits are not adequately communicated to

students. Developing practices that ensure all incoming postdoctoral students are oriented to campus

life, receive comprehensive and complete access to resources (and deadlines), and directions to

dedicated personnel to ensure that receive all possible benefits is necessary to close loopholes for

postdoctoral students.

Overarching Goal #4: Improve interdisciplinary, international[PD1] , and post-qualifying exam support

opportunities

Rationale:

It is becoming increasingly apparent the complex problems in the world today must be solved by an

interdisciplinary approach, and successful graduate programs should facilitate interdisciplinary research and

projects when available and appropriate. A large majority of (85%) of faculty and students indicated that

interdisciplinary programs are somewhat important or very important to graduate education and support

measures that facilitate interdisciplinary work. Opportunities for interdisciplinary research (46% faculty and

47% students) and to enroll in courses outside the primary discipline (37% faculty and 45% students) are cited

as very important. However, current support for developing new programs is lacking (evaluation of current

process was described as average by 40% of faculty and 43% as poor or very poor), and this is especially true

for interdisciplinary programs (described as average by only 27% of faculty, with 50% categorizing it as poor or

very poor). Only 7% of faculty and 20% of students rated opportunities for interdisciplinary research as very

good, and improvement would necessitate institutional support, nimble processes, allocation of money and

faculty, and incentives.

Benchmark institutions offer a wide variety of interdisciplinary programs at various levels of specialization,

ranging from full degree-awarding (masters and doctoral) interdisciplinary programs (45% of benchmarks),

housed both within the Graduate School and within specific departments, to graduate minors (27%), graduate

certificates (45%), and “Interdisciplinary Graduate Groups” (University of Minnesota – Twin Cities). While UK

has pursued interdisciplinary initiatives in the past, most notably indicated by the Multidisciplinary Centers and

Institutes created in the 1980s and administratively housed in the Graduate School (AR 1:3 and GR VII-A.1-

II.A.3), these programs have mostly relocated to colleges, leaving only two units in the Graduate School and

graduate certificates as the primary interdisciplinary programs remaining in the Graduate School.

While UK must retain strength in individual disciplines, a culture of interdisciplinarity will benefit graduate

students regardless whether they pursue academic or nonacademic careers. We recognize that the development

of all graduate students does not necessarily demand better availability and access to interdisciplinary

opportunities, but students who choose to pursue interdisciplinary work should not face barriers to do so, and it

is important to provide this support to those whose future careers will be enhanced by interdisciplinary work.

Interdisciplinary support is also a significant consideration for the development of postdoctoral scholars. To this

end, incentives and disincentives for interdisciplinary activities should be evaluated. We strongly encourage

reviewing the interdisciplinary policies at the University of Missouri-Columbia for solving many

interdisciplinary problems, including funding sources, credit-sharing, and incentives.

Tactics:

58

A. Reexamine Post-Qualifying Status, Tuition, and Residency Credit: Enrollment in courses after

passing the qualifying exam is typically discouraged, although this may enhance a doctoral candidate’s

educational experience. Even if recognized as appropriate, two categories of barriers exist: (1) The

Provost’s Budget Office does not pay greater tuition for teaching assistants beyond the mandatory 2

credit hours per semester, and principal investigators have limited budgets that deter their ability to pay

higher tuition for their research assistants, and (2) Faculty are often hesitant about time away from

dissertation work as additional coursework removes focus from scholarly or creative activities necessary

for his/her dissertation. However, access to courses outside the main discipline may be important to a

student’s research and career aspirations. A mechanism to support interdisciplinary coursework for post-

qualifying students, including the ability to audit without charge or register for up to 3 credits with no

additional tuition cost, is needed. Additionally, the residency requirement should be reduced to 1 credit

per semester (to reduce costs to students). We encourage allowing post-qualifying students to have two

additional semesters of tuition waiver to enhance professional development opportunities in the

fulfillment of a certificate.

B. Facilitating Cross-Disciplinary Content: A nimble process to facilitate the addition and sunsetting of

such programs should be established. The slowness of the current administrative processes is one of

several disincentives to faculty considering launching new initiatives.

C. Assessing Incentives and Methods of Sharing Credit: Designing, seeking approval, launching, and

administering new interdisciplinary programs are often done on top of the normal activities associated

with a faculty member’s DOE. Incentives, such as incorporating program development into the DOE or

overload, should be explored to encourage motivated faculty to pursue these activities. The nature of

interdisciplinary programs involving two or more disciplines can lead to uncertainty about who “gets

credit.” In particular, counting enrollments, graduates, and student credit hours is increasingly important

and has financial consequences for units. Similarly, “getting credit” is also significant for faculty,

whether during for merit evaluations or promotion consideration. Policies for sharing credit must be

determined. Benchmarks provide context for these procedures.

D. Increase Access to Courses: We recommend programs incorporate flexibility for allowing students to

take courses from other departments (either required courses or electives) and offer courses to students

from other departments. Some programs include coursework from outside the primary department.

Course caps and preference to students in the home department can pose challenges to taking the course

at the necessary time. A related consideration is whether programs require that interdisciplinary courses

be taken in addition to or by substitution/overlap with disciplinary content. Some level of

personalization can meet the professional development needs of students without greatly extending the

time to degree.

E. Off-Campus Research: Students who receive research grants to conduct post-qualifying dissertation

research off-campus (e.g., Fulbright) should be given the option to register for 0 credits of residency

tuition at no additional cost for up to one full academic year. Effort should be made to establish and

facilitate international opportunities for students in such a way as to minimize negatively impacting

dissertation timelines and maximize opportunities for professional, career, and research development.

Metrics:

A. Measures of progress include

a. Percentage change in number interdisciplinary graduate certificates

b. Percentage change in number of students pursuing a graduate certificate

59

c. Percentage change in number of faculty of record for graduate certificates

d. Number of programs with flexibility to allow substitution/overlap coursework with

interdisciplinary content.

B. Future surveys will determine whether student needs for interdisciplinary and international

opportunities are being met.

Resources Needed:

A. Administrative Home for Interdisciplinary Programs: An appropriately resourced administrative

home for interdisciplinary programs, similar to those at many benchmark institutions, would be able to

facilitate interdisciplinary programs by establishing practices and policies that incentivize, share credit,

and work with programs to eliminate barriers to taking courses, both financial (post-qualifying

coursework) and academic (programmatic requirements). They would be able to work across disciplines

and create best practices to solve many of the barriers now faced by programs, students, and

administrators. If the Graduate School becomes an empowered Graduate College, creation of a School

of Interdisciplinary Studies would mirror the structure at some peer institutions.

[1] The term students generally refer to graduate students and postdoctoral scholars and fellows.

[PD1]Need to add some rationale/justification

60

3.4 ANALYTICS AND EVALUATION

Committee members

Katie Cardarelli and Jenny Minier (Co-Chairs), Beth Barnes, David Brennan, and Gabriela Jiskrova

Goal 1: Bolster graduate education analytics capacity

• FTE shared by Graduate School and Analytics

• Bolster capacity in Colleges; many superusers focus on undergraduate education

• Especially initially, superusers work with program directors to ensure accuracy

• Better analytics would provide metrics to allow for ongoing evaluation

• Include metrics on graduate student funding – sources of funds, work responsibilities, amount of

stipend, including any college/unit-level supplemental fellowships

o Clarify purpose of funding from Graduate School – is it intended to reward successful programs?

To provide funding for teaching assistants who teach our undergraduates?

Goal 2: Streamline program evaluations for self-improvement

• Allow accredited units to use (re-)accreditation materials if they choose

• Encourage programs to identify discipline-specific assessment measures

• Work with Institutional Effectiveness to develop best practices for graduate program review

• Streamline periodic program review

Goal 3: Utilize Graduate Council to develop and monitor graduate programs' metrics

• Identify core set of measures (inputs, progress, outputs) that can be used widely across programs

• Graduate Council regularly updates Provost on programs reviewed during that period

Goal 4: Develop incentives and accountability

• Establish guidelines for a range of actions for programs consistently under-performing: probation,

suspension of admissions, termination

• Opportunities to highlight high-performing programs on a variety of metrics, including improvement,

recruiting, diversity, performance, etc.

• Communication and transparency about the metrics that will be used and the assignment of

accountability are crucial

Goal 1: Bolster graduate education analytics capacity across campus.

As is clear from many of this Committee’s recommendations, it will be necessary to expand and enhance data

collection. Many of UK’s peer institutions provide much more robust metrics on their graduate programs,

available to the public through their websites, than is the case at UK. These data are needed at UK for both

program assessment and graduate student recruitment.

Tactics

• Hire a new FTE shared by Graduate School and Institutional Research and Analytics.

The current staffing of Institutional Research and Advanced Analytics does not allow for a focus on

graduate education, as that office has historically focused on analytics related to undergraduate

education. Having an FTE housed in the Graduate School and working primarily with Analytics would

provide needed expertise on graduate programs. An FTE jointly sponsored in Analytics and the

Graduate School could help establish needed institutional metrics on academic progress and outcomes,

funding, etc.

61

• Bolster analytic capacity in Colleges.

Many current Superusers focus on undergraduate education and are less familiar with graduate

programs. There is a need to establish at least one Superuser who is familiar with graduate education in

each college that has graduate programs. These Superusers will work with the Graduate School and

Institutional Research and Analytics to provide expertise on the nuances of their students and programs.

• Encourage participation and review by program directors, especially initially – this will help ensure

accuracy, and will provide insight into appropriate metrics for different programs.

Resources – this would require additional resources, specifically one FTE.

Goal 2: Streamline program evaluations for self-improvement.

The time and effort involved in program evaluations is significant. While thoughtfully prepared periodic

program reviews can be extremely valuable, when they are required too frequently or in formats ill-suited to a

program, they can become a pointless box-checking exercise. We are also concerned about how the results of

such reviews are shared and implemented.

Tactics

• Allow accredited units to use (re-)accreditation materials if they choose.

Many graduate programs are accredited by a professional accreditation body that has designed standards

appropriate to the discipline. As long as re-accreditation occurs at least as often as UK’s standards,

programs should be allowed to submit their re-accreditation materials as internal program evaluations.

• Work with the Office of Institutional Effectiveness to develop best practices for graduate program

reviews.

The moratorium on program reviews in 2017-18 allows time for programs to contribute their thoughts

on best practices and appropriate reviews. This includes the format of the review, discipline-specific

assessment measures, and input on how the results of the review can/should be used.

Resources - minimal

Goal 3: Utilize Graduate Council or similar group to develop and monitor graduate programs' metrics.

While program reviews are often somewhat specific to the program under review, it is also necessary to develop

a set of metrics that can be applied relatively consistently across programs to evaluate program status. Because

of the breadth and variety of graduate programs at UK, it would be helpful to have a broadly representative

faculty body involved in determining these metrics. An elected body like Graduate Council also lends some

credibility to the process.

Tactics

• Identify core set of measures (inputs, progress, outputs) to characterize the status of graduate programs

and that can be used widely across programs.

Developing the core set of metrics that is broadly appropriate to many graduate programs is key to the

subsequent monitoring and evaluation of programs. It will be helpful to have as much input from

colleges and programs as possible, and to be very clear about how the metrics will be used.

• Programs’ performance on these metrics should be shared widely, for example on the Graduate School

website, to allow for direct comparison across programs by any interested party.

• Graduate Council should regularly update the Provost on programs reviewed each period.

After identifying metrics, there should be regular monitoring of all programs. Graduate Council, or a

similar body, should monitor programs and identify potential problems. If a program is identified as

struggling in some areas (e.g., has not graduated more than two students in twelve years), the program

62

director may be invited to a meeting of Graduate Council to discuss the issues and possible solutions.

Programs may be given a warning about issues that need to be addressed; these communications should

be shared with the Provost. We also encourage this oversight committee to provide accolades regarding

deserving programs to the Provost – one of the easiest and most cost-efficient ways to incentivize

programs is to recognize and acknowledge those that are doing well.

Resources – This would expand the current responsibilities of Graduate Council, but would also make it a more

interesting, rewarding service assignment. Some of Graduate Council’s current responsibilities (approving

minor program and course changes) could be reassigned or streamlined. Alternatively, these responsibilities

could fall to a separate group, preferably with broad, elected faculty representation.

Goal 4: Develop incentives and accountability.

Both for high-performing and for under-performing programs, the Graduate School should establish clear

guidelines and incentives. Clearly communicating these guidelines, incentives, and the metrics to be used is

critical.

Tactics

• Establish guidelines for a range of actions for programs consistently under-performing, including

probation, suspension of admissions, termination.

Based on the identified and agreed-upon shared metrics, programs should be given suggestions for

improvement and time to improve, but a clear timeline for improvement and consequences if goals are

missed should be established.

• Develop opportunities to highlight high-performing programs on a variety of metrics, including

improvement, recruiting, diversity, performance, etc.

It takes few resources to highlight programs that are doing well – whether in recruiting a diverse student

body, graduate student publications, or completion rates. For example, featuring such programs on the

front page of the Graduate School’s website would both serve as an acknowledgement of the featured

program’s achievements and as inspiration to other programs. Even fairly small financial awards are

meaningful to many programs; for example, establishing a $1,000 Diversity Award for programs –

circulate a request for DGSs to submit their accomplishments in recruiting and maintaining a diverse

class of students, and give the program an increase in block funding for that year.

Resources- Depending on the financial incentives to be implemented, the cost is likely to be minimal.

Metrics

A list of metrics the subcommittee viewed as particularly strong was taken from publicly available information

found on two UK benchmark websites—University of Minnesota (https://apps.grad.umn.edu/stats/) and

University of Wisconsin (https://grad.wisc.edu/about/gradedreports/).

University of Minnesota https://apps.grad.umn.edu/stats/

Applicant metrics (program level):

Number and percentage of applicants by program level (certificate/masters/doctorate), gender, classification

(international/minority).

Admitted student metrics (program level):

63

Number and percentage of admits by program level (certificate/masters/doctorate), gender, classification

(international/minority).

GRE score ranges, including breakdown for Verbal, Quantitative, and Analytical Writing.

Registered student metrics (program level):

Number and percentage of new registrants (matriculates) by program level (certificate/masters/doctorate),

gender, classification (international/minority).

Previous degree institution (breakdown by grouped states, US, and foreign).

Enrollment metrics (program level):

Number and percentage of enrolled students by program level (non-degree/certificate/masters/doctorate),

gender, classification (international/minority), status (part-time/full-time).

Number and percentage of students by fall term credit load (0/.1-2.99/3-5.99/6-8.99/9-11.99/12 or more)

Number and percentage of students by home location

Number and percentage of students by age (less than 21/21-25/26-30/31-35/36-45/over 450

Progress metrics (program level):

Number and percentage of students completing program (after 1 year annually up to after 10 years); categories

for doctoral degrees are inactive/left with masters/leave of absence/active/ABD/completed. Also broken out by

gender and classification (international/minority).

Time to degree (3 to 10 years for doctorate; 1 to 6 years for masters) by total, gender, classification

(international/minority)

Degrees granted metrics (program level):

Number and percentage of students earning degree by program level, gender, classification

(international/minority), median elapsed time to degree, median enrolled time to degree.

Graduate faculty metrics (program level):

Number and percentage of graduate faculty members by tenure status (tenured/tenure

track/emeritus/adjunct/other) and rank (regents professor/professor/associate professor/assistant

professor/research associate/instructor/other).

Number and percentage of graduate faculty members by tenure status and highest education level (post-doc/doc

(academic)/doc (professional)/masters/other).

University of Wisconsin https://grad.wisc.edu/about/gradedreports/

Applicant metrics (program level):

Number of applicants, admits and new enrollments by year

Percentage of applicants admitted and who enrolled by year

Number of applicants, admits and new enrollments by year classified into Domestic Non-Targeted, Domestic

Targeted Minorities, and International

Enrollment metrics (program level):

Annual enrollment headcount by racial/ethnic category

Percentage of enrollment by Domestic Non-Targeted, Domestic Targeted Minorities, and International

Enrollment percentages of all domestic graduate students by racial/ethnic category

Enrollment percentages by gender

Enrollment headcount by academic load (full-time/part-time)

Enrollment headcount by degree plan (masters/doctorate)

64

Funding metrics (program level):

Headcount of students with 33% or higher appointment (fellows/trainees/research assistants/teaching

assistants/project assistants/no funding)

Percentage of students with 33% or higher appointment (fellows/trainees/research assistants/teaching

assistants/project assistants/no funding)

Degrees granted metrics (program level):

Degrees awarded by year (masters/doctorate)

Enrolled terms to degree (average fall and spring term count/median fall and spring term count/average summer

term count/median summer term count) by doctorate and masters

Doctoral program years to degree (graduate level years/doctoral level years/final academic program years/final

PhD program years/candidacy in final PhD program years) and comparison to all AAU peers

Ten year doctoral completion rates (cohort size/% PhD completed/% masters completed with no PhD/% total

degrees completed) and comparison to all AAUs

Placement metrics:

Results from doctoral exit survey; reports response rate, status of postgrad plans in the next year, whether or not

accepted position is in field of doctoral training, whether or not position is a tenure-track faculty appointment,

and type of employer

65

APPENDIX 4.1

SURVEY QUESTIONS

University of Kentucky Graduate School

Web Survey of Graduate Faculty

List provided and survey

administered by Graduate School

SAMPLE: Graduate faculty

Survey Administered From: Office of the Provost

Subject Line: Survey of Graduate Faculty

Introductory language from Dean of the Graduate School and/or Office of the Provost. Introductory

language should include mention of survey length (~15 minutes) and that all responses will be reported in

aggregate with no identifiable information associated with survey responses.

The Provost, in cooperation with the Graduate School and University Senate Council, has assembled a Blue

Ribbon Panel to perform a comprehensive analysis of Graduate Education at the University of Kentucky. In

particular, the charge of this panel is to re-envision graduate education with a focus on the student experience at

UK and whether we are adequately preparing our graduate students for the ever-changing career landscape that

they will encounter. It is expected that the findings and recommendations of this panel will help guide graduate

education on our campus for the next 10-15 years. The Blue Ribbon Panel is composed of 21 members and

includes students, faculty and Deans from fourteen of the sixteen Colleges that comprise our University. This

committee is expected to present its initial report during the latter part of the Fall 2017 semester with the final

report and recommendations presented in early 2018.

The following survey is an initial effort to obtain faculty input regarding graduate education. Some of the

questions pertain to specific departments/programs whereas other questions are in regards to the Graduate

School and/or entire university. We would ask that you fill out this survey and answer the questions to the best

of your ability, with the understanding that you may not have an answer or opinion for some of the questions.

While we appreciate that this is a lengthy survey that may take up to 30 minutes to complete, we value the

thoughtful input of faculty. Please also know that, if needed, you may leave the survey and return to it at a later

time to finish. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and ideas.

Sincerely,

Carl Mattacola

Professor and Associate Dean of Academic and Faculty Affairs

Brett Spear

Professor

<Page>

Question 1: Based on your experience and observations, how important is each of the following

developments/innovations in graduate education? RANDOMIZE OPTIONS; MATRIX FORMAT

66

1=Not at all Important; 2=Not very important; 3=Neither important nor unimportant; 4=Somewhat

important; 5=Very important; 6=Do not know

a. Online education

b. Interdisciplinary study and research

c. Programs that connect undergraduate and graduate programs (e.g. University Scholars)

d. Developing transferable skills in graduate students, which are especially valued beyond academia

(i.e., skills that transfer from job to job regardless of the position, such as oral communication,

leadership, assessing people, team-building).

e. Efforts to embed professional development into traditional degree curricula

f. Preparing graduate students for careers outside of academia

g. Efforts to enhance diversity

h. Decreasing time required for PhD

Question 1a: More specifically, what do you believe is the most important development/innovation in graduate

education today? Feel free to elaborate on why you feel this way. OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 1b: What is the most important development/innovation in teaching graduate students in your field

today? Feel free to elaborate on why you feel this way. OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 2: As you consider the graduate programs offered within your department, do you believe there is an

adequate balance of offerings by degree type (i.e. Master’s, Professional Master’s, PhD/EdD, professional

doctorates)?

a. Yes – SKIP TO Q3

b. No

Question 2a: In which of the following degree types would you like to see further development and growth

within your department? ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES

a. Master’s

b. Professional Master’s

c. PhD/EdD

d. Professional doctoral programs

Question 3: Are there new programs that you would like to develop within your department?

a. Yes

b. No – SKIP TO Q4

Question 3a: What new programs would you like to develop within your own program? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 4: Have you developed a new program at UK?

a. Yes

b. No – SKIP TO Q6

67

Question 5: How would you describe the current process for developing new graduate programs using the scale

below?

a. Very poor

b. Poor

c. Average

d. Good – SKIP TO Q5b

e. Very good – SKIP TO Q5b

Question 5a: What would improve the process for developing new graduate programs at UK? OPEN END;

SKIP TO Q6 AFTER RESPONSE

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 5b: Specifically, what works well about the current process for developing new graduate programs at

UK? OPEN END

_________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 6: In your opinion, how important are interdisciplinary programs that extend between departments or

between colleges?

a. Not at all important – SKIP TO Q7

b. Not very important – SKIP TO Q7

c. Neither important nor unimportant – SKIP TO Q7

d. Somewhat important

e. Very important

Question 6a: Why are interdisciplinary programs important? OPEN END

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 7: What, if any, interdisciplinary programs would you like to see offered in conjunction with your

department? OPEN END

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 8: Have you developed, or tried to develop, an interdisciplinary program?

a. Yes

b. No – SKIP TO Q10

Question 9: How would you describe the process for developing an interdisciplinary program?

a. Very poor

b. Poor

c. Average

d. Good – SKIP TO Q9b

e. Very good – SKIP TO Q9b

Question 9a: What would improve the process for developing interdisciplinary programs at UK? OPEN END;

SKIP TO Q10 AFTER RESPONSE

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 9b: What works well about the current process for developing interdisciplinary programs? OPEN

END

68

_________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 10: In your opinion, how important is each of the following skills as a learning outcome for graduate

students? RANDOMIZE ROWS; MATRIX STYLE

1=Not at all Important; 2=Not very important; 3=Neither important nor unimportant; 4=Somewhat

important; 5=Very important; 6=Do not know

a. Communication of research to novice or public audiences

b. Team work / collaboration

c. Project management

d. Organizational skills

e. Building effective relationships

f. Time management

g. Attention to detail

h. Creative thinking

i. Leadership

j. Presentation skills to a range of audiences

k. Mentoring and motivating peers

Question 10b: What other, if any, transferable skills are important for graduate students? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 11: From your perspective, how do the graduate students in your department perform on these

transferable skills by the time they complete their graduate studies?

1=Not at all well; 2=Not very well; 3=Average; 4=Well; 5=Very well

a. Communication of research to novice or public audiences

b. Team work / collaboration

c. Project management

d. Organizational skills

e. Building effective relationships

f. Time management

g. Attention to detail

h. Creative thinking

i. Leadership

j. Presentation skills to a range of audiences

k. Mentoring and motivating peers

Question 11a: What would help develop transferable skills for graduate students? OPEN END

________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 11b: Should efforts to develop transferable skills be done within your department or at the level of the

Graduate School? OPEN END

________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 11c: What has your department done to successfully prepare graduate students with these transferable?

OPEN END

________________________________________________________________________________________

69

<Page>

Question 12: Do you believe your department should prepare graduate students for both academic and non-

academic careers?

a. Yes

b. No – SKIP TO Q15

Question 13: Why is it important to prepare graduate students for academic and non-academic careers? OPEN

END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 14: How well are the students who want to pursue non-academic careers in your department prepared

to do so?

a. Not well at all

b. Not very well

c. Average

d. Well – SKIP TO Q14b

e. Very well – SKIP TO Q14b

Question 14a: How could your department better prepare graduate students who intend to pursue non-academic

careers? OPEN END; SKIP TO Q15 AFTER RESPONSE

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 14b: What has your department done to successfully prepare graduate students for non-academic

careers? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 15: What do you believe are the greatest funding needs for your department to support graduate

education? RANDOMIZE OPTIONS W/ “OTHER” ALWAYS LAST

a. Teaching Assistant positions

b. Research Assistant positions

c. Graduate Assistant positions

d. Interdisciplinary research

e. Better stipends for graduate students

f. Improved facilities

g. Other _____________

<Page>

Question 16: Regarding the entire university, indicate the importance of the following characteristics in

effectively delivering graduate education using the five-point scale: MATRIX FORMAT; RANDOMIZE

ATTRIBUTE ORDER

1=Not at all important 2=Not very important

3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat important

5=Very important 6=Do not know

1. Opportunities for students to conduct research

2. Opportunities for interdisciplinary research

70

3. Opportunities for students to enroll in courses outside of their primary discipline

4. Courses that can be completed online

5. Programs that can be completed online

6. Ensuring that PhD students are able to complete their degree within five years

7. Aligning courses, co-curricular experiences, and entire programs with the needs of the local or regional

community

8. Opportunities for professional development (i.e. career fairs or resume workshops)

9. Development of non-technical skills (e.g. leadership and communication)

10. A full-service career services office for all graduate students

11. Quality of faculty as mentors

12. Availability of experiential learning opportunities aside from research (e.g. internships/externships)

13. Quality of academic facilities such as classrooms, labs, computer resources, etc.

14. Diversity of the student body

15. Diversity of graduate faculty

16. Opportunities for international study (research, courses, internship, etc.)

17. Preparing students for careers in academia

18. Preparing students for alt-academic or non-academic careers

19. Training of Faculty to be effective mentors for graduate students

20. Ensuring sufficient financial support for students

21. Ensuring balanced student work load

<Page>

Question 17: In what ways does UK excel at providing a high-quality experience for graduate students? OPEN

END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 17b: If different, how does your department excel at providing a high-quality experience for graduate

students? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 18: In what ways could UK improve in delivering a high-quality graduate student experience? OPEN

END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 18b: If different, how could your department improve in delivering a high-quality graduate student

experience? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 19: What innovations in graduate education would enhance the graduate student experience at UK?

OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

71

Question 20: What innovations in delivering graduate education within your field would enhance the graduate

student experience in your department? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 21: Please rate your perception of UK’s success on each of the following characteristics using the

five-point scale: MATRIX FORMAT; RANDOMIZE ATTRIBUTE ORDER

1=Very poor 2=Poor

3=Average 4=Good

5=Very good 6=Do not know

1. Opportunities for students to conduct research

2. Opportunities for interdisciplinary research

3. Opportunities for students to enroll in courses outside of their primary discipline

4. Courses that can be completed online

5. Programs that can be completed online

6. Ensuring that PhD students are able to complete their degrees within five years

7. Aligning courses, co-curricular experiences, and entire programs with the needs of the local or regional

community

8. Opportunities for professional development (i.e. career fairs or resume workshops)

9. Development of non-technical skills (e.g. leadership and communication)

10. A full-service career services office for all graduate students

11. Quality of faculty as mentors

12. Availability of experiential learning opportunities aside from research (e.g. internships/externships)

13. Quality of academic facilities such as classrooms, labs, computer resources, etc.

14. Diversity of the student body

15. Diversity of graduate faculty

16. Opportunities for international study (research, courses, internship, etc.)

17. Preparing students for careers in academia

18. Preparing students for alt-academic or non-academic careers

19. Training of Faculty to be effective mentors for graduate students.

20. Ensuring sufficient financial support for students

21. Ensuring balanced student work load

<Page>

Question 22: In your opinion, how does your department perform when it comes to recruiting and enrolling

high-performing graduate students?

a. Very Poor

b. Poor

c. Average

d. Good – SKIP TO Q24

e. Very Good – SKIP TO Q24

Question 23: How can your program more effectively recruit and enroll top graduate students to UK? OPEN

END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

72

Question 24: How can the Graduate School more effectively assist in the recruitment and enrollment of

graduate students to UK? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 25: What do you believe is the most important goal for your program in the next ten years? OPEN

END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 26: What do you believe is the most important goal for the University of Kentucky Graduate School in

the next ten years? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 26b: What are the steps that need to be taken to accomplish that goal? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

We are almost finished. We have just a few more demographic questions for classification purposes only.

Question 27: What college do you represent?

a. Agriculture, Food, and Environment

b. Arts and Sciences

c. Business and Economics

d. Communication and Information

e. Dentistry

f. Design

g. Education

h. Engineering

i. Fine Arts

j. Health Sciences

k. Law

l. Medicine

m. Nursing

n. Pharmacy

o. Public Health

p. Social Work

Question 28: How long (in years) have you worked at the University of Kentucky?

a. Less than one year

b. 1-5 years

c. 6-10 years

d. 11-15 years

e. 16-20 years

f. 20+ years

Question 29: How many Master’s thesis committees have you served on?

a. 0

73

b. 1-5

c. 6-10

d. 11 or more

Question 30: How many Master’s thesis committees have you chaired?

a. 0

b. 1-5

c. 6-10

d. 11 or more

Question 31: How many doctoral dissertation committees have you served on?

a. 0

b. 1-5

c. 6-10

d. 11 or more

Question 32: How many doctoral dissertation committees have you chaired?

a. 0

b. 1-5

c. 6-10

d. 11 or more

Thank you for your time and help!

University of Kentucky Graduate School

Web Survey of Graduate Students

List provided and survey

administered by Graduate School

SAMPLE: Graduate students

Survey Administered From: Office of the Provost

Subject Line: Survey of Graduate Students

The Provost, in cooperation with the Graduate School and University Senate Council, has assembled a Blue

Ribbon Panel to perform a comprehensive analysis of Graduate Education at the University of Kentucky. In

particular, the charge of this panel is to re-envision graduate education with a focus on the student experience at

UK and whether graduate students are being adequately prepared for the ever-changing career landscape that

will be encountered. It is expected that the findings and recommendations of this panel will help guide graduate

education on our campus for the next 10-15 years. The Blue Ribbon Panel is comprised of 21 members and

includes graduate students, faculty and Deans from fourteen of the sixteen Colleges that comprise our

University. This committee is expected to present its initial report late during the latter part of the Fall 2017

semester with the final report and recommendations presented in early 2018.

The following survey is an initial effort to obtain student input regarding graduate education. Some of the

questions pertain to specific departments/programs whereas other questions are in regards to the Graduate

School and/or entire university. We would ask that you fill out this survey and answer the questions to the best

of your ability, with the understanding that you may not have an answer or opinion for some of the

questions. While we appreciate that this is a lengthy survey that may take up to 30 minutes to complete, we

74

value the thoughtful input of students. In gratitude for your time, we will enter your name into a drawing for one

of ten $50 Amazon gift cards that you will be eligible for upon completion of the survey.

Please know that your individual responses will be kept confidential and findings will only be reported in

aggregate. Additionally, you can leave the survey and return to it at a later time if need be. Thank you for taking

the time to share your thoughts and ideas.

Sincerely,

Carl Mattacola

Professor and Associate Dean of Academic and Faculty Affairs

Brett Spear

Professor

<Page>

Question 1: Based on your experience and observations, how important is each of the following

developments/innovations in graduate education? RANDOMIZE OPTIONS; MATRIX FORMAT

1=Not at all Important; 2=Not very important; 3=Neither important nor unimportant; 4=Somewhat

important; 5=Very important; 6=Do not know

i. Online education

j. Interdisciplinary study and research

k. Programs that connect undergraduate and graduate programs (e.g. University Scholars)

l. Developing transferable skills in graduate students, which are especially valued beyond academia

(i.e., skills that transfer from job to job regardless of the position, such as oral communication,

leadership, assessing people, team-building).

m. Efforts to embed professional development into traditional degree curricula

n. Preparing graduate students for careers outside of academia

o. Efforts to enhance diversity

p. Decreasing time required for PhD

Question 1a: More specifically, what do you believe is the most important development/innovation in graduate

education today? Feel free to elaborate on your response. OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 2: As you consider the graduate programs offered within your department, do you believe there is an

adequate balance of offerings by degree type (i.e. Master’s, Professional Master’s, PhD/EdD, professional

doctorates)?

c. Yes – SKIP TO Q3

d. No

Question 2a: In which of the following degree types would you like to see further development and growth

within your department? ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES

e. Master’s

f. Professional Master’s

g. PhD/EdD

75

h. Professional doctoral programs

Question 3: Are there new programs that you would like to see developed within your department?

c. Yes

d. No – SKIP TO Q4

Question 3a: What new programs would you like to see developed within your program? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

<Page>

Question 4: In your opinion, how important are interdisciplinary programs that extend between departments or

between colleges?

f. Not at all important – SKIP TO Q5

g. Not very important – SKIP TO Q5

h. Neither important nor unimportant – SKIP TO Q5

i. Somewhat important

j. Very important

Question 4a: Why are interdisciplinary programs important? OPEN END

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 5: What, if any, interdisciplinary programs would you like to see offered in conjunction with your

department? OPEN END

_________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 6: In your opinion, how important is each of the following skills as a learning outcome in graduate

education? RANDOMIZE ROWS; MATRIX STYLE

1=Not at all Important; 2=Not very important; 3=Neither important nor unimportant; 4=Somewhat

important; 5=Very important; 6=Do not know

l. Communication of research to novice or public audiences

m. Team work / collaboration

n. Project management

o. Organizational skills

p. Building effective relationships

q. Time management

r. Attention to detail

s. Creative thinking

t. Leadership

u. Presentation skills to a range of audiences

v. Mentoring and motivating peers

Question 6b: What other, if any, transferable skills are important for graduate students? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

76

Question 7: From your perspective, how do the graduate students in your department perform on these

transferable skills by the time they complete their graduate studies?

1=Not at all well; 2=Not very well; 3=Average; 4=Well; 5=Very well

l. Communication of research to novice or public audiences

m. Team work / collaboration

n. Project management

o. Organizational skills

p. Building effective relationships

q. Time management

r. Attention to detail

s. Creative thinking

t. Leadership

u. Presentation skills to a range of audiences

v. Mentoring and motivating peers

Question 7a: What would help develop transferable skills for graduate students? OPEN END

________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 7b: Should efforts to develop transferable skills be done within your department or at the level of the

Graduate School? OPEN END

________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 7c: What has your department done to successfully prepare graduate students with these transferable

skills? OPEN END

________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 8: Do you believe your department should prepare graduate students for both academic and non-

academic careers?

c. Yes

d. No – SKIP TO Q10

Question 9: Why is it important to prepare graduate students for academic and non-academic careers? OPEN

END; SKIP TO Q11

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 10: Why should your department not prepare graduate students for both academic and non-academic

careers? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 11: How well are the students who want to pursue non-academic careers in your department prepared

to do so?

f. Not well at all

g. Not very well

h. Average

i. Well – SKIP TO Q11b

j. Very well – SKIP TO Q11b

77

Question 11a: How could your department better prepare graduate students who intend to pursue non-academic

careers? OPEN END; SKIP TO Q12 AFTER RESPONSE

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 11b: What has your department done to successfully prepare graduate students for non-academic

careers? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 12: What do you believe are the greatest funding needs for your department to support graduate

education? RANDOMIZE OPTIONS W/ “OTHER” ALWAYS LAST, MORE THAN ONE ANSWER

AVAILABLE

h. Teaching Assistant positions

i. Research Assistant positions

j. Graduate Assistant positions

k. Interdisciplinary research

l. Better stipends for graduate students

m. Improved Facilities

n. Other _____________

<Page>

Question 13: Regarding the entire university, indicate the importance of the following characteristics in

effectively delivering graduate education using the five-point scale: MATRIX FORMAT; RANDOMIZE

ATTRIBUTE ORDER

1=Not at all important 2=Not very important

3=Neither important nor unimportant 4=Somewhat important

5=Very important 6=Do not know

22. Opportunities for students to conduct research

23. Opportunities for interdisciplinary research

24. Opportunities for students to enroll in courses outside of their primary discipline

25. Courses that can be completed online

26. Programs that can be completed online

27. Ensuring that PhD students are able to complete their degree within five years

28. Aligning courses, co-curricular experiences, and entire programs with the needs of the local or regional

community

29. Opportunities for professional development (i.e. career fairs or resume workshops)

30. Development of non-technical skills (e.g. leadership and communication)

31. A full-service career services office for all graduate students

32. Quality of faculty as mentors

33. Availability of experiential learning opportunities aside from research (e.g. internships/externships)

34. Quality of academic facilities such as classrooms, labs, computer resources, etc.

35. Diversity of the student body

36. Diversity of graduate faculty

37. Opportunities for international study (research, courses, internship, etc.)

38. Preparing students for careers in academia

39. Preparing students for alt-academic or non-academic careers

78

40. Training of Faculty to be effective mentors for graduate students

41. Ensuring sufficient financial support for students

42. Ensuring balanced student work load

43. Opportunities to develop skills in grant-writing and obtaining funding

<Page>

Question 14: In what ways does UK excel at providing a high-quality experience for graduate students? OPEN

END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 14b: If different, how does your department excel at providing a high-quality experience for graduate

students? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 15: In what ways could UK improve in delivering a high-quality graduate student experience? OPEN

END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 15b: If different, how could your department improve in delivering a high-quality graduate student

experience? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 16: What innovations in graduate education would enhance the graduate student experience at UK?

OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 17: What innovations in delivering graduate education within your field would enhance the graduate

student experience in your department? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 18: Please rate your perception of UK’s success on each of the following characteristics using the

five-point scale: MATRIX FORMAT; RANDOMIZE ATTRIBUTE ORDER

1=Very poor 2=Poor

3=Average 4=Good

5=Very good 6=Do not know

22. Opportunities for students to conduct research

23. Opportunities for interdisciplinary research

24. Opportunities for students to enroll in courses outside of their primary discipline

25. Courses that can be completed online

26. Programs that can be completed online

27. Ensuring that PhD students are able to complete their degree within five years

79

28. Aligning courses, co-curricular experiences, and entire programs with the needs of the local or regional

community

29. Opportunities for professional development (i.e. career fairs or resume workshops)

30. Development of non-technical skills (e.g. leadership and communication)

31. A full-service career services office for all graduate students

32. Quality of faculty as mentors

33. Availability of experiential learning opportunities aside from research (e.g. internships/externships)

34. Quality of academic facilities such as classrooms, labs, computer resources, etc.

35. Diversity of the student body

36. Diversity of graduate faculty

37. Opportunities for international study (research, courses, internship, etc.)

38. Preparing students for careers in academia

39. Preparing students for alt-academic or non-academic careers in industry

40. Training of Faculty to be effective mentors for graduate students.

41. Ensuring sufficient financial support for students

42. Ensuring balanced student work load

43. Opportunities to develop skills in grant-writing and obtaining funding

<Page>

Question 19: How can your program more effectively recruit and enroll top graduate students to UK? OPEN

END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 20: Which of the following do you believe concerning your funding?

a. My funding is more than sufficient for my needs.

b. My funding is sufficient for my needs.

c. My funding is less than sufficient for my needs. SKIP TO Q20a

Question 20a: Please elaborate.

<Page>

Question 21: Which of the following campus programs or events have you participated in? MULTIPLE

RESPONSE

• Multicultural Student Thanksgiving Dinner (Alumni Association)

• Police escort around campus after hours

• MLK Center Campus Diversity Spring Event

• SafeRide Home

• UK Alternative Service Breaks (ASB)

• Beyond the Blue

80

• Big Blue Pantry

• DanceBlue

• FUSION (For Unity and Service in Our Neighborhoods)

• Martin Luther King Jr. Wildcats for Service

• UK Mountain Cats

• PAWS (Promoting Animal Welfare and Services)

• NHHAW (National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week)

• UK Service Corps

• Young at Heart

• Commonwealth Leadership Reception

• SGA Public Relations Events and Advertisements

• 3MT: Three-Minute Thesis Competition

• Graduate Student Welcome: Ice Cream Social

• Dinner with the President

• “Life After Graduate School” Conference

• Graduate Student Research Travel Awards

• Graduate Student Leaders Conference

• Anthropology Conference

• Homecoming

• Homecoming Trivia Night

• UK Student Legal Services

• LiveSafe (Safety Application)

• LiveSafe Guest Speaker

• “It’s on Us” Week (Safety Week)

• UKSGA Answers (open forum about SGA)

• VIP Center

• Wildcat Wardrobe (Provides professional clothing for job interviews and networking events)

<Page>

Question 22: Which of the following campus programs or events meets your needs as a graduate student?

MULTIPLE RESPONSE

• Multicultural Student Thanksgiving Dinner (Alumni Association)

• Police escort around campus after hours

• MLK Center Campus Diversity Spring Event

• SafeRide Home

• UK Alternative Service Breaks (ASB)

• Beyond the Blue

• Big Blue Pantry

• DanceBlue

• FUSION (For Unity and Service in Our Neighborhoods)

• Martin Luther King Jr. Wildcats for Service

• UK Mountain Cats

• PAWS (Promoting Animal Welfare and Services)

• NHHAW (National Hunger and Homelessness Awareness Week)

81

• UK Service Corps

• Young at Heart

• Commonwealth Leadership Reception

• SGA Public Relations Events and Advertisements

• 3MT: Three-Minute Thesis Competition

• Graduate Student Welcome: Ice Cream Social

• Dinner with the President

• “Life After Graduate School” Conference

• Graduate Student Research Travel Awards

• Graduate Student Leaders Conference

• Anthropology Conference

• Homecoming

• Homecoming Trivia Night

• UK Student Legal Services

• LiveSafe (Safety Application)

• LiveSafe Guest Speaker

• “It’s on Us” Week (Safety Week)

• UKSGA Answers (open forum about SGA)

• VIP Center

• Wildcat Wardrobe (Provides professional clothing for job interviews and networking events)

Question 23: What programs or events would you like to be developed on UK campus to aid graduate students?

OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 24: Which of the following university resources have you utilized? RANDOMIZE

• Career Center

• Student Center

• Graduate Student Housing

• Counseling Center

• Student Health Services

• International Center

• Johnson Center

• Other: ______________

<Page>

Question 25: What are your biggest challenges in graduate school? MULTIPLE RESPONSE

• Family responsibilities

• Financial stress

• Research problems

• Advisor/Mentor problems

82

• Personal relationship problems

• Teaching responsibilities

• Problems with colleagues and other students

• Other: ________________

Question 26: What could UK do to help address these problems? OPEN END

__________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

Question 27: Are you an international student?

a. No – SKIP TO Q28

b. Yes

Question 27a: Where are you primarily interested in pursuing a career after completion of your degree?

a. United States

b. Another country _______________

c. Not decided yet

Question 27b: Which of the following resources have you used to obtain information about a visa, U.S. work

permission, and the U.S. job market in general? MULTIPLE RESPONSE

• UK International Center

• Workshops offered by UK

• The Graduate School

• Online resources

• Family and friends

• Advisor/Mentor

• Other: ________________

Question 27c: Which of the following is the most applicable about UK and services it offers to international

graduate students?

a. Services offered to support international graduate students are more than sufficient. - SKIP TO Q28

b. Services offered to support international graduate students are sufficient. – SKIP TO Q28

c. Services offered to support international graduate students are insufficient.

Question 27d: Please elaborate. OPEN END

________________________________________________________________________________________

<Page>

We are almost finished. We have just a few more demographic questions for classification purposes only.

Question 28: What college do you represent?

q. Agriculture, Food, and Environment

83

r. Arts and Sciences

s. Business and Economics

t. Communication and Information

u. Dentistry

v. Design

w. Education

x. Engineering

y. Fine Arts

z. Health Sciences

aa. Law

bb. Medicine

cc. Nursing

dd. Pharmacy

ee. Public Health

ff. Social Work

Question 28: How long (in years) have you been a graduate student at the University of Kentucky?

a. 1-2 years

b. 3-4 years

c. 5-6 years

d. 7+ years

Question 29: Where are you in reference to your qualifying exam?

a. Pre-qualifying exam

b. Currently taking my qualifying exam

c. Post-qualifying exam

Thank you for your time and help!

84

APPENDIX 4.2

STAMATS REPORT LINK

University of Kentuckypresented by

Chuck ReedSenior VP for Client Services

Grant De RooResearch Consultant

05.25.2017

Stamats, Inc. Cedar Rapids, IA

800.553.8878

Survey of Graduate Faculty and Graduate Students

http://www.uky.edu/provost/sites/www.uky.edu.provost/files/Final%20Report%20of%20Survey%20of%20Gra

duate%20Faculty%20and%20Graduate%20Students%20-%20UK%20Graduate%20School%5B1%5D.pdf

85

APPENDIX 4.3

GRADUATE SCHOOL STRUCTURE, STAFFING, AND FUNCTIONS

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with the sub-committee and for the opportunity to respond to

questions raised during the meeting. As part of our response below, we have included an overview of

current Graduate Schools functions. We would be happy to provide additional information if needed.

1. Provide models from other campuses of effective graduate school *physical* facilities ("graduate

centers") that give the GS visibility among faculty and students and that facilitate/encourage interaction

of students (and faculty) from across the campus ("graduate student commons"; instructional/meeting

spaces; etc.).

This is an emerging area, with a number of Graduate Student Centers being established in just the last few

years. GS Centers have emerged in response to pressures within and beyond universities to (a) improve rates

of graduate degree completion and shorten time to degree and (b) move career readiness to a central position

in graduate education, as the doctoral job market has increasingly shifted away from the professoriate to

careers beyond the academy. GS Centers serve as a centralized hub of activity and leadership in the dual

areas of graduate student academic success and professional development. They also foster belonging and a

greater sense of community among graduate students, thereby improving alumni engagement with and

support for the graduate school. Probably the ideal model would house the student center and the graduate

school itself in one facility. Two good examples of graduate student centers are:

Texas Tech University: https://www.depts.ttu.edu/gradcenter/

University of Pennsylvania: http://www.gsc.upenn.edu/activities/

2. Point to successful models from other campuses for expanded platforms of support around the

experience of international graduate students.

Several universities offer robust academic-success resources for international graduate students, though

there does not appear to be a consistent pattern as to the housing of these resources. The University of

Michigan is a consistent leader in this field, offering a range of courses, particularly writing courses, for

ESL graduate students. See https://lsa.umich.edu/eli/courses. Arizona State University also has an excellent

reputation for the work they do with international students (https://issc.asu.edu/). Ohio State used to be

regarded as the leader, but they underwent severe budget cuts 2 years ago, and it’s unclear to us how those

cuts affected the efficacy of their support. Currently at UK, we enjoy a solid working relationship with the

International Center and together we are constantly looking for ways to make the international graduate

student experience even better.

3. What areas/sectors could be mutually supported between the GS and the VPR that would result in

greater support, increased strength, enhanced efficiency or effectiveness in graduate education? Where

are the linkages? Where might there ideally be tighter linkages?

Linkages between graduate schools and VPR offices vary greatly. The true benefits of the linkages will take

us a while to explore and sort out. In general, VPRs can set research agendas and priorities and therefore are

86

in a position of power to encourage and orchestrate interdisciplinary collaborations and discoveries.

Graduate Schools do not wield that power, but they can help provide and oversee the educational

components and facilitate the degree processes and thereby promote interdisciplinarity. (For example, we

have already progressed in this area by changing policies that were restricting or discouraging the formation

of interdisciplinary advisory committees.). One good example of the combined VPR-Graduate School

model would be Michigan State University:

https://vprgs.msu.edu/

https://grad.msu.edu/

4. With regard to prior Dean Carvalho’s spreadsheet of essential functions of the Graduate School we offer

the following thoughts:

Graduate School-Specific Functions

Later in this document we provide an overview of current Graduate School functions. Most are included

under this first column with the exception of admissions. We would advocate for this essential function to

be included in the Graduate School column, fully recognizing that success in this endeavor requires a close

collaboration with the academic programs.

‘Maybe’ Graduate School Functions

• Postdoctoral Students: At the present time, our role is restricted primarily to the review and approval

of postdoctoral student contracts. We would welcome the opportunity to provide comprehensive

support services to the postdoctoral community. The rate-limiting issue at this point is resources

(physical space and staffing). Our limited discussions with personnel in the VPRs office suggest that

there are currently no plans for them to offer centralized services.

• Diversity Organizations: We are already committed to this work. Six months ago, the staff of the

Center for Graduate and Professional Diversity Initiatives (CGPDI) relocated to the first floor of the

Gillis Building. At the same time, Assistant Dean Cleo Price’s role was modified to include a 50%

commitment to under-represented minority recruitment and retention. We see a tremendous

opportunity for joint initiatives to be developed between Dr. Price and the CGPDI staff.

• Connections to Support Services: We provide a comprehensive listing of these services on our web-

site listed under Graduate Student Resources:

http://www.research.uky.edu/gs/CurrentStudents/resources.html

College-Specific Functions

• TA/RA/GA Stipends: Since they are the source of the supporting revenue, there is no question that

stipends should indeed be controlled at the college level. There is concern, however, that the stipends

and associated workloads vary considerably across campus, particularly for TAs. The Graduate

School is currently collecting detailed data on this issue for future dissemination to the campus

community.

• Prestige/Allocated Fellowships: The number of prestige fellowships currently administered by the

Graduate School is unfortunately very small. It is difficult to envisage how this limited number could

be equitably distributed to the colleges for their future oversight.

87

• Increasing Decentralization and Flexibility of Funding: We have taken an important first step in this

direction with the establishment of the block funding program. The primary goal of this program was

to provide flexible funds to colleges/programs early in the recruiting cycle to help attract the very

best students. The program consolidated funds from the following sources:

• Kentucky Opportunity Fellowship

• Graduate School Academic Year Fellowship

• Multi-Year Fellowship

• Dissertation Year Fellowship

• QA/Reedy Award

• Gillis Award

• Travel Award

• Dissertation Enhancement Award

A total of approximately $2,000,000 was then distributed to the colleges based on 1) % of total funds

disbursed awarded to each college averaged over the last 3 years and 2) % of total doctoral student

enrollment in each college. The disbursed funds could be used for the following activities:

• Stipends of graduate students enrolled in a UK graduate program.

• Tuition payments (via SAG form) for graduate students enrolled in a UK graduate program.

• Costs for UK graduate students to attend meetings in their field, including costs related to travel,

lodging, and meeting registration.

• Costs for UK graduate students to travel to sites needed to do research or training deemed to be

necessary for that student’s thesis/dissertation work.

• Alumni/Friends Development for Fellowships: There is no question that the most effective

campaigns are college/program-based. The Graduate School has attempted this form of fund-raising

in the past with very little success.

• DGSs reporting to College: It is not clear what is to be gained by altering the current reporting

structure. The programs/colleges select the DGSs; the Graduate School’s role is to ensure the

nominees meet eligibility criteria.

Shared Functions

We believe we already partner successfully with the colleges in several areas including:

• Recruitment: There is enormous potential for enhanced collaborative/coordinated recruitment

activities. The Office of Admissions, Recruitment and Academic

Administration works in partnership with graduate programs to improve and promote the visibility

of UK among prospective graduate students. We currently use targeted communications using the

current Hobsons CRM product - Connect and this can be improved with the planned implementation

of the Salesforce CRM.

• Admissions: As described below, the admissions process is heavily dependent on what is currently a

very effective partnership with the programs. Admissions Officers rigorously review and evaluate

the credentials of all applications recommended for admission by the programs to ensure that

admissions standards are met.

88

• Career Development: Many of Dr. Grubbs’ initiatives rely on partnerships with the

colleges/programs; given the limited GS-based resources, expansion of existing programs and

development of new programs will be dependent on even greater participation from the campus

community.

• TA Training/Monitoring: Under the direction of Dr. Grubbs, this is already a shared responsibility.

• Diversity Recruitment/Retention: As described below, the realignment of Dr. Price’s responsibilities

was an important step to help promote expansion of campus-wide partnerships to address this

initiative.

• DGSs: As described in the column, the Graduate School is responsible for the initial appointment of

the DGS and for monitoring effective execution of responsibilities, but ultimately they oversee the

academic progress and success of the program/college’s students.

Shared Functions to be Developed:

• Determining Metrics/Targets/Goals: There is no question that this should be a shared responsibility.

A case in point relates to the Block Funding initiative. In the very near future a series of metrics will

be established to help determine whether the current levels of funding to individual colleges should

be maintained or modified.

• Dean-VPR Relationship: This was discussed earlier.

• Tuition Scholarships: We were unclear on the intent of this potential shared function.

CURRENT FUNCTIONS OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

We provide below an overview of the services currently provided by the Graduate School. The flow-chart

distributed at our meeting listed a total of 29 Graduate School staff members who are responsible for

providing these services. It should be noted that this number includes:

• Two 0.5 FTE associate deans (Jackson and Sarge)

• Three part-time STEPS employees

• Two short-term contract employees (Davis and Garner)

• Three graduate assistants

• One intern

Hopefully, after review of the information provided below, it will become quite evident that a small number

of very dedicated individuals provide a large number of services.

OFFICE OF THE DEAN

As specified by the University Regulations, the Dean of the Graduate School is charged with administering

the policies adopted by the Graduate Faculty and the University Senate relating to graduate studies. The

dean presides over all meetings of the Graduate Faculty and calls meetings of this faculty whenever it is

advisable or whenever requested to do so by one-fourth of the membership. Recommendations are made by

the dean to the Graduate Faculty regarding the requirements for advanced degrees, the regulations necessary

to insure a high standard of graduate work and all other aspects of the graduate program. The graduate

programs are administered in the interest of efficient instruction and the highest attainment possible on the

89

part of each graduate student. The dean is responsible for determining and certifying to the Registrar

candidates who have fulfilled requirements for advanced degrees.

Two academic units are housed within the Graduate School and the directors of both report to the Dean of

the Graduate School, the Martin School of Public Policy and Administration, and the Patterson School of

Diplomacy and International Commerce.

The work of the Dean’s Office is supported by one administrative assistant. Primary functions of this office

include:

• Appointment of Graduate Faculty

The Dean of the Graduate School is responsible for appointing and monitoring the progress of Associate

Members of the Graduate Faculty. Associate members are authorized to teach graduate courses, direct

master's theses, and serve on and co-chair doctoral committees. Associate membership is limited to a term

of three years with reappointment possible after departmental review.

Appointment to Full Graduate Faculty membership is typically made at the point of promotion to Associate

Professor. Full members of the Graduate Faculty are particularly responsible for:

• Guidance of graduate student research and study to its completion. The finished work should meet or

exceed accepted standards for publication, dissemination or performance within the particular discipline.

• Participation in the formulation of graduate curricula and policy.

Once Full Graduate Faculty status is attained, membership is continuous unless a change in status is

recommended by a graduate program to the Dean of the Graduate School, who will present the

recommendation to the Graduate Council.

• Chair of Graduate Council

The Graduate Council is an elected body that represents the graduate faculty as a whole. The Dean of the

Graduate School chairs the Graduate Council. The functions of the council include:

• consider all proposed new courses and changes in courses which may be used for credit toward a

graduate degree. It shall forward to the Undergraduate Council recommendations on all courses

numbered 400G-499G.

• consider all proposed new graduate programs, changes in graduate programs (including degree titles

for both graduate program and honorary degrees), forwarding its recommendations to the Senate

Council.

• review all graduate programs and suggest measures to the Graduate Dean designed to maintain

acceptable levels of academic quality. Such recommendations may include (1) suspension of

programs for a maximum of five years, (2) lifting of suspensions, and (3) termination of programs.

[this responsibility was recently modified by the Senate]

• review distance learning activities for quality and effectiveness, in keeping with Southern

Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) substantive changes criteria.

• periodically review and report to the Graduate Faculty and Senate on the effectiveness of the

educational policies of the Graduate School (a) concerning certificates awarded in relation to

graduate courses or training, (b) in relation to the education and training of postdoctoral

scholars/fellow, and (c) in relation to post-baccalaureate students.

• periodically make recommendations to the elected faculty representatives in University Senate on the

titles used for honorary degrees, and on the conditions of merit and circumstance applied to the

award of honorary degrees.

90

• Appointment of Directors of Graduate Studies (and Graduate Certificates)

Directors of Graduate Studies (DGSs) are the local representatives of each graduate program.

They provide for the program's administration and act as the official liaison with the Graduate School.

Directors of Graduate Studies are responsible to the Graduate Faculty of their program and to the Dean of

the Graduate School for the recruitment, admission, advising, and examination of students in their program.

Directors of Graduate Studies are appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School after consultation with the

respective Graduate Faculty and administration in a program. The DGS is normally a tenured faculty

member, holding the rank of Associate Professor or above, and is a full member of the Graduate Faculty.

The Director of Graduate Studies reports directly to the Dean of the Graduate School or to the Dean's

designee on all matters relating to graduate education in the program.

OFFICE OF ADMISSIONS AND RECRUITMENT

Reporting to the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Administration, the Office of Admissions and

Recruitment is directed by Senior Assistant Dean Pat Bond. The current admissions process is a close

collaborative effort between the graduate programs (typically the DGS and support staff) and the admissions

officers. Procedurally, the programs receive complete application packages through the Hobsons Apply-

Yourself system. They provide admissions decisions to their designated admissions officer who is then

responsible for final review of applicant credentials, communication of the decision to the applicant, and

collection of all official documents (including transcripts, test scores (GRE, GMAT etc.) and language

scores (TOEFL, IELTS)). Officers also manage appeals for exceptions (GPA, language proficiency) which

are directed to the Senior Associate Dean for approval. The admissions officers also act as Designated

School Officials (DSOs) and are responsible for issuing immigration documents to international students

which enable them to apply for a visa or maintain continued student status. This process includes obtaining

releases from previous schools and collecting all required documentation. This function supports the

responsibilities of the International Center. It should be noted that the Graduate School receives no portion

of the International Student Fee assessed each year of all international students. Additionally, officers

routinely assist with applicant and current student requests for change of semester, program and level. On an

annual basis, we receive over 5000 applications through Apply-Yourself.

The Assistant Director of Admissions and Recruitment (Suzanne McGinnis) is a recently created position

with diverse responsibilities. One critical function is the continuous maintenance and updating of the Apply-

Yourself system and its companion CRM system, Connect. This position also places a renewed emphasis on

international recruitment which has suffered as a result of the recent president-imposed travel restrictions.

The Office of Admissions, Recruitment and Academic Administration augments the recruitment efforts of

the programs by providing training and continuing guidance on best practices and holistic admissions

review. Additionally, the office provides access to purchased prospective student contacts via GRE Search,

leads from various sources including but not limited to web visits, fairs, College Week Live. In addition, the

Senior Assistant Dean and the Assistant Director work to increase the visibility of the University’s Graduate

Programs both domestically and internationally. In the international sphere the Senior Assistant Dean and

Assistant Director work to cultivate partnerships with colleges, Education-USA, the U.S. State Department,

and other Government Sponsors to make UK a preferred school for their students and

fellowship/sponsorship awardees. Consequently, the office plays a leading role in meeting the goals outlined

in UK’s 2015-2020 strategic plan. A Graduate Assistant, Clarissa Thomas, assists in outreach and

recruitment activities under the direction of the Senior Assistant Dean and the Assistant Director. These

include campus visits, recruitment fairs, online chats with prospective students as well as on and off-campus

91

presentations. Angela Gardner also plays an important role in the recruitment process. She is not a

permanent member of the Graduate School staff; we are partnering with Arts and Sciences on a 3-year

contract. Angela works with Assistant Dean Pat Bond to promote international student recruitment, with a

particular emphasis on expansion of the conditional admission initiative. She also works closely with

Assistant Dean Morris Grubbs to provide essential oral and written English language training to

international students, and serves an important role in international TA language screening and training.

The two part-time STEPS employees are responsible for ensuring that all enrolled student efiles are

complete and meet SACs accreditation standards.

Academic Administration is another central function of this office and includes enrollment management

oversight such as the review, approval and processing of Add/Drops, withdrawals and credit overloads.

Enrolled students also often seek guidance from this office when they experience challenges and referrals to

campus services are regularly provided. Similarly, Academic programs often seek the assistance of this

office and are provided referrals for professional services from campus student services. Additionally, under

the purview of the Senior Assistant Dean, post-doctoral scholar and fellow appointments are reviewed and

approved before forwarding to compensation for processing.

A major challenge for this office in the near-term will be to migrate to the new enterprise CRM, Salesforce.

Since this requires termination of the contract with Hobsons the Graduate School will also have to transition

to the Salesforce application module (Undergraduate Admissions will continue to use an established home-

built application). A recent decision was made to delay development work on this project until the Blue

Ribbon panel recommendations were released. We currently have a contract extension with Hobsons

through July of 2018.

It should be noted that the majority of staff salaries in this office are covered by the application fee.

OFFICE OF ACADEMIC SERVICES

Reporting to the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Administration, the Office of Academic Services is

under the direction of Assistant Dean Cleo Price. This office of three Student Affairs Officers processes

several key elements of the student’s academic progression through their graduate programs. These include:

• Approval of doctoral and master’s advisory committee composition.

• Approval of requests to schedule qualifying, masters and doctoral final examinations.

• Appointment of outside examiners for doctoral final examinations.

• Review and final approval of theses and dissertations.

• Certification of all degrees.

• Posting of approved transfers of credit to the transcript.

Workflow in this office is most heavily dependent on the GRADS system. One of the principal

responsibilities of Linda Davis is to coordinate the migration from this outdated software/database (which

also supports workflow in the funding office) into SAP. Specific requirements have been identified and

documented; work cannot however move forward on this unless the Graduate School provides the financial

resources for dedicated programming time. As noted earlier, Linda is not a permanent member of the

Graduate School staff; she was brought in initially on a 2-year contract (supported by the Provost Budget

Office).

92

In addition to oversight of Academic Services, Dr. Price has also taken on responsibility for the recruitment

and retention of underrepresented graduate student groups. This function was formerly housed in the Office

of Admissions, Recruitment and Academic Administration. Assistant Dean Price works to promote UK

among underrepresented groups as well as identify and build partnerships with feeder institutions. This role

also serves as the representative for UK at the National Name Exchange and provides programs with student

contacts from that repository of names. Additionally, Dr. Price manages the administration of the SREB

scholarships and McNair partnerships and visits. With the assistance of a Graduate Assistant Nigel Vinegar,

he coordinates underrepresented student visits and recruitment fair attendance. In this role he interacts

closely with the Office for Institutional Diversity and the Center for Graduate and Professional Diversity

Initiatives, which recently established an office in the Gillis Building.

OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Under the direction of Assistant Dean Morris Grubbs, the fundamental goal of this office is to assist students

in identifying and developing skills that will foster success and growth in any pathway(s) they choose. The

Office functions and succeeds through partnerships with other service units, organizations, and programs on

campus, including (but not limited to) CELT, Transformative Learning, CESL, The International Center,

The Counseling Center, The Writing Center, The Stuckert Career Center, A&S’s Careers Beyond the

Professoriate, The Center for Graduate and Professional Diversity Initiatives, and UK HR Training and

Development.

The Office also oversees International TA Language Screenings (governed by state law, UK ARs, and

SACS), campus-wide TA Credentialing (governed by SACS policies), and the TA classroom observation

and evaluation process. Dr. Grubbs also facilitates the Nietzel Visiting Distinguished Faculty Award

Program, the Kirwan Prize and Sturgill Award, national and regional thesis and dissertation awards, and

Honorary Doctoral Degrees. Other major initiatives include:

• Professional Enhancement Opportunities for Graduate Students: The Graduate School offers services

to students that complement their degree coursework and support their career pursuits. Students may

subscribe to the Graduate Student Listserv for a weekly emailed list of announcements about

activities and opportunities, such as workshops, seminars, conferences, grants, and cultural events.

• Activities and Resources for Graduate Teaching Assistants: The Graduate School holds university-

wide orientations for new TAs twice a year with average annual total attendance of 500 new

graduate TAs. Our website provides links to resources to aid TAs in their various responsibilities,

including campus offices, university policies and regulations, and announcements about pedagogy

workshops.

• Preparing Future Faculty/Professionals Program: Students interested in exploring and preparing for a

faculty career at any of the four primary types of institutions (research university, regional

comprehensive university, private liberal arts college or university, and community college) will find

a wealth of opportunities here, including workshops, coursework, and guidelines for application

letters, CVs, and statements of research and teaching philosophy.

• Graduate Certificate in College Teaching and Learning: The Preparing Future Faculty Program

offers a 12-credit-hour certificate curriculum culminating in a mentored teaching practicum.

• 20-Minute Mentor Commons: The Graduate School offers currently enrolled graduate students and

TA Developers cloud-based access to more than 120 short video/slide presentations by leading

experts on issues confronting college-level instructors. Each video is accompanied by supplemental

materials in pdf, including a summary and transcript of the presentation.

93

• Thesis/Dissertation Boot Camp: The Thesis/Dissertation Writing Retreat, offered in winter and

summer, provides a quiet, supportive environment for students writing a master's thesis or doctoral

dissertation. The next Camp will be held in Winter 2017.

• Links to Online Career Resources: The Graduate School maintains a set of vetted online career

resources, ranging from The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Vitae and Inside Higher Ed’s Carpe

Careers to MyIDP and PhDs at Work, The Versatile PhD (for all disciplines) and Imagine PhD (for

humanities and social sciences).

• Three-Minute Thesis (3MT) Competition: Co-sponsored with the Graduate Student Congress.

Competition heats run in October; final competition is early November. 3MT workshops occur in

September and include: 1. Getting to Your Point: Distilling the

Message, 2. The Art of Public Delivery, 3. Using Visuals to Bring the Story of Your Research to

Life

• Graduate Student Leaders Conference: For officers and leaders (current and rising) of all graduate

student organizations. Sessions focus on leadership in theory and practice, and the practicalities of

running effective organizations at UK (effective budgeting, event planning, etc.).

• Life After Grad School: A Graduate Careers Symposium: Co-sponsored with the Graduate Student

Congress, the symposium is keynoted by a nationally known expert on preparing graduate students

for a range of career paths academic, alt-ac, and nonacademic paths.

• Grad Degree+: Is an opportunity for graduate students to develop and refine transferable skills

highly sought by employers. Students build their own personalized Grad Degree+ toolkit by

completing modular tracks (Leadership, Communication, Pedagogical Theory, etc.) that can stand

alone or be combined with additional tracks to under-gird degree program content.

The Office of Professional Development is drafting a plan for an "Orientation to Graduate Studies and

Graduate Student Life," to be offered each fall semester for new graduate students in all disciplines. This

orientation will be a sequence of three to four 90-minute sessions spread throughout the semester that cover

topics including research and scholarly ethics, optimizing campus resources for academic success,

establishing and maintaining a responsible digital identity, cultivating transferable skills, and exploring and

planning for multiple career pathways. The orientation will begin as a pilot, and, depending on its efficacy,

may transition to a requirement for all new graduate students.

OFFICE OF FUNDING, FINANCE AND ANALYTICS

Under the direction of Associate Dean Kevin Sarge, this office performs the following major functions in

support of Graduate Education at the University of Kentucky.

• Disburse tuition scholarships for over 2000 funded (TA/RA/GA) and GS fellowship receiving

graduate students, based on GSAS forms.

• Generate the data for and execute the in state tuition invoicing process by which this tuition portion

is charged back to department/grant accounts for their RAs/GAs.

• Organize the competitions for the 13 fellowships that are overseen by the Graduate School (most of

these are sourced from private endowments whose legal agreements specified oversight/execution by

the Graduate School): these include Presidential, Matthews/Singletary/Wethington, Lexmark,

Herald-Leader, Still, N. KY/Greater Cincinnati, Cralle, UK Woman’s Club, Assoc. of Emeriti

Faculty, Steckler, and Lyman T. Johnson fellowships.

94

• Perform the required payroll actions for all of the students receiving these GS-based fellowships,

which requires close coordination with the programs.

• Allocate Dean's in-state tuition scholarships for RAs on grants that do not allow tuition, based on

petitions from colleges.

• Oversee and disburse awards made from entities outside UK including the Southern Region

Education Board, GEM, and NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NSF policy is that the

Dean of the institution’s Graduate School is the PI for GRFP program).

• Educate and provide answers to programs regarding processes including entry of GSAS forms,

appropriate uses and payroll assignments of TAs/RAs/GAs, overload work assignments, and

appropriate use of Block Funding money.

• Run reports during the Fall/Spring semesters to verify that the appropriate funded graduate students

are on the Student Health plan invoice/enrollment list.

• Perform budget oversight and expenditure actions for units within the Graduate School as well as the

Martin and Patterson Schools. This includes reconciliation of accounts, JVs, DAVs, procard edits,

and analysis of Block Funding program spending to ensure the money is used for appropriate

support of Graduate Students.

Data generation responsibilities include:

• Providing institutional reports to NIH and NSF (3 reports annually), Survey of Earned Doctorates (3-

4 reports annually), and Council of Graduate Schools (3 reports annually).

• Generate for the BOT/UK Administration an annual Graduate enrollment report and strategic plan

metrics data reports.

• Research and generate proof-of-concept models from SAP source tables to provide a foundation for

creating effective HANA models, including those requested by the Provost’s office, Dean’s Council,

and Blue Ribbon panel (i.e. institutional level data). Proof of concept models generated to date

include ones for admissions, time-to-degree, TA allocation, GSAS data, and Funding Revenue.

Charge to the Blue-Ribbon Panel on Graduate Education January 18, 2017

The 2015-2020 University of Kentucky Strategic Plan calls us to, “strengthen the quality and distinctiveness of our graduate programs to transform our students into accomplished scholars and professionals who contribute to the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world through their research and discovery, creative endeavors, teaching, and service.” Our ability to rethink graduate education and provide an innovative and multi-faceted teaching and research community will elevate our intellectual aspirations as a leading university.

Graduate education is the linchpin of any research university. It spans all missions, playing an integral role in the success of undergraduate education, research, and departmental success. At the same time, we recognize that the scope of professional opportunities for UK’s graduate students is changing in fundamental ways.

The context of our time puts the university at a defining moment for graduate education. Globally, there are discussions about the role of graduate education at universities and for students. Sharing in the academy’s deliberations, we must prepare our students with the intellectual, technical, and soft skills to succeed in the world beyond our campus.

In doing so, the Provost’s Blue-Ribbon Panel on Graduate Education is tasked with envisioning the graduate student experience and developing a rigorous intellectual vision for the University of Kentucky’s graduate education mission for the next 10-15 years.

The first part of this task, envisioning the graduate student experience, will call the panel to develop a philosophical framework for graduate education that reflects the demands and realities of the 21st century. The panel will determine how UK can best prepare its graduate students for a diverse range of career opportunities in an ever-changing and often unpredictable global economy. Part of fostering the graduate student experience will require the panel to contemplate the proper balance and intersection between graduate students, their work in the classroom, and their interaction with faculty and their research. It will also require a set of recommendations on the concrete initiatives, support systems, and culture shifts necessary – both centrally and in the colleges – to support graduate student success.

As the panel addresses and envisions the student experience for graduate education, it must also contemplate and develop a rigorous intellectual vision for graduate education. Doing so will require the panel to recommend criteria for assessing the effectiveness, impact, and viability of graduate programs, as well as rigorous, holistic, and faculty-led processes for establishing new programs and sun-setting existing programs, if needed.

Finally, questions about the structure of the Graduate School, specifically, and graduate education, generally, will be driven by strategies and recommendations developed by the Blue-Ribbon Panel’s work. By identifying our strategy for success, we can build the most effective structure for carrying out the agenda. The strategy, too, will help address many of the issues identified in the past: administrative structure, stipends, student support services, and infrastructure.

APPENDIX 4.4

95

The assembled panel of faculty, staff, and students will work through the spring 2017 semester with the support of the Office of the Provost to deliver a robust set of recommendations by the beginning of the fall 2017 semester. As part of this process, the panel will be provided with the requisite campus and industry-level data, as well as feedback gathered from the University Senate, deans, and academic leadership of UK’s colleges. During the early fall 2017 semester, the report will be subject to input and comment from the campus community and presented to the Board of Trustees during the October 2017 retreat. The final report and recommendations will be adopted, and the colleges, necessary campus entities, and deliberative bodies will begin implementation in January 2018.

Members of the Provost’s Blue-Ribbon Panel on Graduate Education:

Mark Coyne, Agriculture, Food & Environment Mark Lauersdorf, Arts & Sciences Sarah Lyon, Arts & Sciences Jenny Minier, Business & Economics Tom Kelly, Nursing and Medicine Beth Barnes, Communication Greg Luhan, Design Beth Rous, Education David Puleo, Engineering Zach Hilt, Engineering Rachel Shane, Fine Arts

Donna Kwon, Fine Arts Carl Mattacola, Health Sciences Brett Spear, Medicine Katie Cardarelli, Public Health Gabriela Jiskrova, student Kaylynne Glover, student Donna Arnett, Dean, Public Health Kip Guy, Dean, Pharmacy Mark Kornbluh, Dean, Arts & Sciences Ann Vail, Interim Dean, Social Work

96